Connect with us

Cannabis News

Is President Biden the ‘Faux Pro-Cannabis Reformer’?

Published

on


Joe Biden on cannabis reform

https://mjbizdaily.com/critics-question-value-of-bidens-marijuana-research-law/

 

The phrase “bread and circus” originates from ancient Rome, referring to a political strategy of providing superficial distractions and entertainment to the masses, while neglecting substantial issues and failing to deliver on promises. Unfortunately, this concept of empty spectacle seems all too familiar in today’s political landscape. President Joe Biden, who campaigned on promises of significant cannabis reform, has come under scrutiny for his administration’s lackluster approach to the issue.

 

Throughout history, politicians have mastered the art of making grand promises only to fall short in delivering substantial change. Biden’s pro-cannabis rhetoric during his campaign created a sense of hope among advocates and supporters of legalization. However, as time has passed, it has become apparent that the Biden administration’s actions are more about showmanship than meaningful progress.

 

 

In the realm of politics, promises often come with an expiration date, leaving voters disillusioned by the lack of follow-through.

 

President Joe Biden, who touted significant cannabis reform during his campaign, has faced criticism for his administration’s failure to deliver on those promises. Despite the enactment of the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act in December, which was received with hope and enthusiasm by the cannabis industry, little progress has been made in advancing federal cannabis research and reform.

 

As highlighted in an article by Chris Roberts on MJBizDaily, the Biden administration’s approach to cannabis reform has been lackluster at best. The federal government’s failure to initiate new cannabis research projects or approve applications for research-grade cannabis production under the new law has drawn the ire of critics.

 

Even Attorney General Merrick Garland has yet to place the necessary notice to consider research applications, leaving aspiring researchers stranded.

 

The responsibility for overseeing research on cannabis, a Schedule I controlled substance, remains with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) rather than health or science officials. This has raised concerns about the potential roadblocks faced by researchers due to the DEA’s historical stance on marijuana. Sue Sisley, a licensed researcher, expressed disappointment in the lack of progress, stating that the new research bill has not facilitated any advancements in marijuana research.

 

Furthermore, the involvement of organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) in drafting the research bill has cast doubt on its true intentions. SAM, known for its anti-legalization stance, claimed credit for its role in shaping the legislation. 

 

I frequently discredit the work of their founder who goes on prohibitionist tours all over the world, spouting his anti-cannabis rhetoric.

 

Critics argue that this raises questions about the bill’s efficacy and whether it was designed to impede research progress rather than foster it. This is something we’ve seen with the Biden Admin – their long standing allegiance to the pharmaceutical industry, of which SAM is certainly an offset from. SAM makes most of its money from its rehabilitation clinics, which is why when people aren’t forced by courts to do “mandatory rehab”, they would stand to lose revenue.

 

The shortcomings of the research reform bill, as highlighted by cannabis policy attorney Shane Pennington, further diminish its impact.

 

Pennington points out that the bill grants the DEA significant authority over cannabis research, undermining the prospects of genuine scientific advancement. Additionally, the bill fails to address research on commercially sold marijuana, which has higher THC levels than federally approved research cannabis. This limitation raises concerns about the validity and applicability of research findings to real-world scenarios involving cannabis use.

 

In light of these criticisms, it becomes clear that the Biden administration’s pro-cannabis rhetoric may be nothing more than a façade. Something I have argued since day one of his administration. In fact, while Democrats like Tommy Chong was touting the victory over “The Evil Orange one”, they were in fact signing a contract with another devil.

 

You just have to go down a clip parade of Biden’s “tough on drugs” path to political power and his completely racist past to know where his allegiances lie.

 

The lack of progress in federal cannabis research and the involvement of organizations with opposing views have fueled skepticism about the administration’s commitment to meaningful reform. As the industry and advocates continue to call for genuine progress, it is crucial to examine whether the administration’s promises will materialize or if they are merely another instance of political bread and circus – offering empty gestures while substantive change remains elusive.

 

You know where I stand on this issue – Mr. Pharma – who can barely string a coherent sentence – will not be opening the gates of cannabis legalization during his presidency.

 

Research will be placed in the hands of the DEA who has the current definition of cannabis as “Highly addictive and no medical value” which is scientifically incorrect.

 

That’s like if NASA believed in a flat earth “officially”.

 

But here’s the thing most people don’t get yet – the government has been playing this game for decades and only those who have carefully studied the drug war and their policies understand that Biden basically punked all “blue voting” cannabis smokers.

 

He played you for a fool, and unfortunately – Tommy Chong, Steven King, and all the people who pushed the “There’s only Biden” strategy in the previous elections placed a career prohibitionist at the help of legalizing cannabis.

 

Let me explain the DEA-FDA Catch-22!

 

 

If you analyze the historic actions in relation to cannabis research and regulation, you’ll notice a complex web of bureaucracy that has hindered progress and left cannabis activists frustrated.

 

This perpetual cycle, often referred to as the DEA/FDA Catch-22, is a mechanism that perpetuates bureaucratic hurdles, making it difficult for meaningful change to occur. By intertwining the actions of different agencies and subjecting them to the approval of one another, progress becomes stymied, and the status quo remains intact.

 

Cannabis activists have long requested a scientific review of cannabis, urging the government to reassess its classification and explore its potential medical benefits. However, these requests have often been met with bureaucratic obstacles, with paperwork being shuffled between offices, resulting in a cycle of apparent busyness without any substantial progress.

 

This tactic, reminiscent of the frustrating experiences one encounters when trying to reach customer service at large corporations like Amazon or banks, is designed to discourage and exhaust activists.

 

The underlying motive behind this bureaucratic maze can be traced back to the Controlled Substances Act of 1971.

 

Critics argue that the Act, with its strict classification of drugs, was designed to keep drugs, including cannabis, under the control of pharmaceutical interests. This intentional obstructionism serves to maintain the existing power structures and prevent the emergence of alternative approaches to drug policy.

 

The DEA/FDA Catch-22 manifests as a reciprocal dependency between agencies. The FDA claims that they need permission from the DEA to study cannabis, while the DEA claims it needs the FDA to do the assessments in order to essentially “grant the permissions”. Sure, this is very basic and not entirely outlining the whole processs – but it falls within these lines. This circular dependency perpetuates a bureaucratic stalemate, leaving both agencies seemingly unable to move forward without the other’s permission.

 

As a result, cannabis activists and researchers are caught in a frustrating cycle of waiting, hoping for progress while being met with bureaucratic barriers. This Catch-22 mechanism effectively pacifies and frustrates those seeking change, making it difficult to challenge the existing power dynamics and push for meaningful reform.

 

The way I see it you have a few options from this point on.

 

  • You realize that the whole political arena is nothing more than “Bread and Circus” and that we’re living more closely to serfdom than we are full democracy. All you have to do to see this is to realize that “YOU” are the product (consumers) and that our modern royalty call themselves “Corporations”.

 

It’s these corporations that sponsor bills and change laws and pay hefty sums of money to news outlets and politicians to keep the people at bay.

This means that any participation within the system is pointless because at the end of the day, you’re not the one influencing the laws or policies in the country. They are done with the direction of these corporations.

 

As a result, you can simply declare yourself an Anarchist – never vote again, figure out ways to pay less and less taxes, move to the country and simply say, “Fuck it!”

 

You don’t even need to move anywhere, you could technically stay right where you are, and even pay taxes – understanding that if you don’t an entity with guns will force you or take away your liberty – but, hold the philosophy at heart that you don’t support “their system”.

 

Rather, you’re actively beginning to create a new system, one that is open-source and allows people to be themselves without being directed by consumerist policies.

 

  • You get angry! You switch sides and go to the Reds! Except, they too are bought by the same corporate elite and serve their masters. Different corporate masters, but masters nonetheless.

 

Going this route ensures nothing. You’re basically still playing the game designed to keep you in a cage. Trump sold vaccines for Pfizer, placed pharma execs at the helm of the pandemic – he is no savior.

 

For those who is drinking the Orange Kool-Aid, you’re just the same as your democrat “rivals”. You’re simply the opposite side of the coin, but are fundamentally the same thing.

 

This is because you subscribe to party over reason and curiosity. You subscribe to dogma over rational thinking. You are simply myopically focused on one outcome, “your tribe winning”.

 

And your tribe was infected decades ago, and you’re still pandering to their games – giving them your loyalty when all they do is systematically fuck you as much as they can.

 

Sure, there might be some people that seems like they are legit – but the whole system has been coopted and if you don’t see that, you’re simply a perpetuator of a cancerous system.

 

If you’re reading these words, maybe it’s time to wake the fuck up!

 

 

I’m an anarchist, but I’m also a foreign-national. This means that I don’t live in the country I was born in. This means that for my whole life, I never really participated in any election process. I have never voted and I probably never will.

 

However, even for an Anarchist like me, there is something that can be said of “local politics”. This is the real battle ground for change and if stoners and non-stoners alike could realize this, they could break the system in a matter of 10-years or less.

 

Here’s the thing. The current system is a nodal system of hierarchy.

 

Everything is divided into “power zoners”. You’ve got the “BIG ONE” which everyone sees. This is the Bidens and Trumps, the major elections. These are all meaningless mainly because that system is rigged.

 

It doesn’t matter who you vote for – “The SYSTEM” is  okay with either candidate winning. It’s gone through the selection process, the donors have all agreed – whoever wins is good for business.

 

Then we move down to “major leagues” which would be State authority. Over here, you can actually have some power, but, just like “THE BIG ONE” there are power mafias gatekeeping the positions. This is because on a State level, you could technically enact new laws that are illegal on a federal level.

 

To get to this level – you have to bend over and spread cheeks for your corporate overlords, because they are involved in this scene too.

 

When we go down to counties and municipalities – the little leagues – this is where things get interesting. Granted, you might not have crazy power at this level, but – there are minor laws and policies that can get enacted and when people see the benefit of this – the concepts spread like wildfires.

 

This is because, within local communities – people are connected. You know the people in your neighborhoods, your local store owners, etc.

 

On this level, you can start creating local “decriminalization efforts”, you can divert funds to help with the problems of your community.

 

If I were to spend any energy attempting at fixing the system – this is where I’d start.

 

Maybe you won’t make a major change – but you’ll be a part of it, and that counts!

 

 

 

At the end of the day, you have to decide your level of involvement in the charade. It has become painfully obvious that our so called leaders have been infiltrated and financially “acquired” by our corporate masters – and that as long as we continue to pretend that it isn’t like this…the longer it will go on.

 

In the meanwhile, either unplug or get active, but for the love of Ganj – stop blindly participating in the lies.

 

BIDEN THROWS THE MARIJUANA INDUSTRY A BONE, READ ON…

BIDEN TROJAN HORSE TO THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY

BIDEN’S TROJAN HORSE FOR THE CANNABIS INDUSTRY?



Source link

Cannabis News

Federal Cannabis Roundup: Nixon, DEA, Tobacco-Hemp . . . and the DOOBIE Act (*sigh*)

Published

on

By


Last week, I wrote a round-up post on Oregon cannabis. This week, I thought I’d drop a line on the federal happenings. Which are quite a few.

The Nixon tapes

This was a fun piece of news, unearthed by Minnesota cannabis lobbyist Kurtis Hanna. Ernesto Londoño then broke the story on September 14th for the New York Times, which you can read here. In short, Nixon conceded that marijuana “is not particularly dangerous,” despite calling the plant “public enemy No. 1” only two years prior. And he opined that punishments ought not be so serious for possession of the plant.

I say this news is “fun” because it’s more interesting than surprising and I doubt it will have much impact. Nixon was a mean old liar, and one with an animus toward certain groups of people. I also don’t think this revelation will persuade the vocal, diminishing minority of prohibitionists to change their minds. I like it anyway, especially as cannabis history nerd. We were right!

DEA embraces two-step review for marijuana rescheduling

This one is important, in my opinion. It relates to the method of analysis DEA must undertake when determining whether a drug, including marijuana (and psilocybin, and any other verboten substance), has a “currently accepted medical use.” In April, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) put DEA in a box on this one, explaining that the old, five-part test was “impermissibly narrow.” OLC thus endorsed the two-part test. On September 17th, DEA assented to the test for Schedule I review.

The two-part test bodes well for DEA’s rulemaking, now underway, to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act. How do we know? Well, the Schedule I stans don’t like it, for starters. This is because, under two-part review, a drug can have currently accepted medical use: a) even if that drug hasn’t been approved by FDA, and b) even if the drug wouldn’t pass DEA’s scrapped five-part test. So, more runway.

DOOBIE Act on the way?

I’m embarrassed even having to type that. But yes, some Congressperson named a federal cannabis bill the “DOOBIE Act,” unfortunately. With a press release and everything.

This proposal would prohibit federal agencies from denying security clearance and employment to people simply because they have used marijuana. In my reading of the actual bill, these agencies could still ding an applicant for past marijuana use, but they couldn’t “base a suitability determination . . . solely on the past use of marijuana by the individual.” The word “solely” needs to go.

Because this bill applies only to “Executive agencies” under 5 U.S. Code § 105, it also wouldn’t have prohibited, say, Joe Biden from doing his “doobie” staffers dirty, which he definitely did.

FDA gets the nod on tobacco-hemp

I like the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and often send people thataway. On September 16th, CRS published a new report titled “Legal Effect of Marijuana Rescheduling on FDA’s Regulation of Cannabis.” Here are my extremely condensed takeaways:

  1. FDA can authorize tobacco products containing hemp-derived cannabinoids (although it hasn’t yet). This is because hemp is not a controlled substance.
  2. Marijuana, even at Schedule III, would still be banned as a tobacco additive (and probably always will be). This is because FDA would need to approve specific cannabis medicines first, and it never does that for botanical drugs.

Here we have one of those cognitively dissonant outcomes often seen with the cannabis plant. As a reading of law it makes sense, but as to policy it’s nonsense. You can thank Richard Nixon and other cannabis heels for that.



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Does Hemp Have Cancer-Fighting Properties?

Published

on

By


hemp for fighting cancer

Does Hemp Have Cancer-Fighting Properties?

Hemp, Weed’s Cousin, May Have More Therapeutic Value Than We Thought

 

While both hemp and cannabis come from the same plant, they possess significant differences.

 

Hemp, in particular, has become the less popular cousin of weed because more people were interested in the psychoactive properties of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). And since hemp only contains less 0.3% or less of THC, recreational consumers weren’t keen on it.

 

Historically speaking, hemp has been famous for thousands of years across ancient civilizations around the world. It was cultivated for its reliable fibers, used in textiles, rope, clothing, and paper. Even back then, hemp’s nutritious properties were known. People ate its seeds and extracted oil, while it was used for treating many conditions in ancient China and ancient India.

 

However, hemp plants do contain a much higher amount of cannabidiol (CBD), and due to the sheer demand for CBD products lately for their medicinal benefits, hemp became better-known. Now, the global CBD market is estimated to be worth a cool US $7.71 billion, and it’s only expected to grow more. After all, the CBD in hemp has been found to be tremendously powerful especially for treating a wide range of diseases and afflictions, from anxiety to insomnia, and much more.

 

However, CBD isn’t the only therapeutic value found in hemp.

 

Can Hemp Help Fight Cancer?

A recent study by the Rowett Institute took a look into the potential value of specific fibers added to the diet of patients with prostate cancer, and its effect, if any, on tumors. The NHS Grampian Charity has invested £90,000 into this research, which has been led by Professor Anne Kiltie, who is a member of Friends of ANCHOR Clinical Chair in Oncology, at the University of Aberdeen.

The new study, which was conducted by Dr. Aliu Moomin, Dr. Sylvia Duncan, and Dr. Madi Neascu, focused on hemp fibers such as hemp hull, inulin, and pectin. They analyzed how these fibers affect gut bacteria in animal models, and its overall impact on tumor cells.

 

According to Professor Kiltie: “This funding will allow us to build on our previous work demonstrating a benefit to dietary fibre supplementation in terms of improved tumor control and protection of the bowel from radiotherapy damage, by looking at other types of fiber and how these interact with the gut microbiota,” she said. The idea is that if they notice improvements when cancer patients supplement with fiber, and it actually helps delay the progression of cancer, this would be instrumental improving patient outcomes.


We have long known that diet plays a critical role in cancer development and prevention, so it only makes sense to take advantage of the healing power of gut microbiome for cancer patients. There are several studies that show a strong link between gut microbiome and one’s cancer risk. One study in particular found that patients with melanoma, who possessed healthy gut bacteria, had much better responses to immunotherapy treatments compared to patients who had poorer gut bacteria.

 

“We hope that this work would lead to a large randomized clinical trial in the UK in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. If the fiber supplementation is found to delay progression of the disease and prevent the need for active treatments, this would significantly improve outcomes for these patients and their quality of life,” she added, shared by a release published by the University of Aberdeen.

According to Dr. Simon Dunmore, the NHS Grampian Charity research officer: “The importance of intestinal microbiome in a wide range of health areas, including the development of cancer, is becoming increasingly highlighted by numerous scientific studies,” he said. “This study will provide important evidence of the role of a beneficial gut microbiome composition in reducing the aggressiveness and development of prostate cancer and the positive effect of dietary fibre on the microbiome,” he added.

 

Studies On Hemp Oil For Cancer


There are other studies supporting the viability and potential of hemp compounds for treating cancer. In another recent study out of Shanghai in China, researchers found that hemp oil extracts which contain the terpenes humulene and caryophyllene were found to be effective in treating pain and fighting cancer.

 

For the study, Chinese researchers analyzed the tumor-fighting and painkilling properties of hemp oil on mice. They found that after administering the hemp oil extracts, it was found to significantly reduce tumor growth. “Thes results reveal that HEO [hemp essential oil] plays a role not only in tumor chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy treatment, but also in anti-tumor treatment which offers key information for new strategies in cancer treatment and provides reference for the medicinal development of hemp,” they said.


Additionally, since hemp contains abundant levels of cannabidiol (CBD), it can be used for alleviating the symptoms of cancer treatment. Studies have shown that CBD is effective for helping relieve pain, stimulate the appetite, and minimize nausea and vomiting – all of which are tremendously valuable for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. CBD can also be integrated into one’s lifestyle to reduce chronic inflammation and stress, which, when left untreated, can contribute to cancer progression.

 

Conclusion


These studies are promising: hemp is clearly not just important for its industrial benefits, but it can also help save lives. The compounds found in hemp plants may help fight and treat cancer, shrink tumors, and even enhance the effectiveness of traditional cancer therapies. If you or a loved one want to explore using hemp for wellness and cancer prevention, you may consult with healthcare professionals for tailored medical advice.

 

HEMP FOR FIGHTING CANCER, READ ON…

CBD FOR OVARIAN CANCER

CBD FROM HEMP HELPS FIGHT OVARIAN CANCER IN NEW STUDY?



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Why is Everyone But the Youth Smoking Weed?

Published

on

By


youth marijuana use drops

In recent years, the landscape of cannabis use has undergone a surprising transformation, defying long-held predictions and challenging conventional wisdom. For decades, opponents of marijuana legalization have wielded a powerful argument: legalizing cannabis would send the wrong message to youth, inevitably leading to increased consumption among teenagers and young adults. This fear has been a cornerstone of anti-legalization campaigns, painting a grim picture of a future where young minds are clouded by widespread drug use.

However, as more states and countries have embraced cannabis legalization, an unexpected trend has emerged. Contrary to dire predictions, youth cannabis use has not skyrocketed. In fact, in many places, it has remained stable or even declined. Meanwhile, it’s the older generations who are increasingly turning to cannabis, with one of the fastest-growing demographics of users being adults over 50.

This shift isn’t limited to cannabis alone. Across the board, today’s youth are showing less interest in various substances, including alcohol and tobacco. It’s a trend that has left researchers and social commentators puzzled. Are we witnessing the rise of a more health-conscious, drug-averse generation? Or, as some might cheekily suggest, are young people today simply less inclined towards experimentation and risk-taking than their predecessors?

The implications of this trend are far-reaching, challenging not only our assumptions about drug policy but also our understanding of generational behaviors and values. On one hand, we could interpret this as a positive development – a sign that education and awareness campaigns are working, producing a generation more informed about the risks of substance use. On the other hand, it raises questions about changing social dynamics and what drives young people’s choices in today’s world.

In this article, we’ll explore the factors behind this intriguing phenomenon. Why are fewer young people turning to cannabis and other substances, even as legal barriers fall? And what’s driving older adults, particularly those over 50, to embrace cannabis in growing numbers?

By examining these trends, we hope to gain insight into the complex interplay of social, legal, and cultural factors shaping attitudes towards substance use in our society.

 

As we delve into the statistics, a clear trend emerges: fewer young people are indulging in substances across the board. Whether it’s alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis, today’s youth are increasingly abstaining. This shift has left many scratching their heads, wondering what’s behind this sudden display of temperance among the younger generation.

At first glance, one might be tempted to chalk it up to the success of drug education programs. After all, today’s youth are bombarded with information about the risks and consequences of substance use from an early age. Gone are the days of simplistic “Just Say No” campaigns and exaggerated scare tactics. Modern drug education tends to be more nuanced, focusing on harm reduction and evidence-based information.

However, as someone who went through the gauntlet of ’90s drug education myself, I can attest that knowledge doesn’t always translate to abstinence. My generation was subjected to a barrage of anti-drug messaging, yet many of us still experimented with various substances in our youth. So while improved education may play a role, it’s unlikely to be the sole factor driving this trend.

Perhaps we need to look at what today’s youth are doing instead. Enter the elephant in the room: social media. In many ways, social platforms have become the drug of choice for the younger generation. The constant dopamine hits from likes, shares, and notifications create a neurological response eerily similar to that of traditional stimulants. As kids spend more time glued to their screens, they may be less inclined to seek out other forms of stimulation.

Moreover, the ubiquity of social media has changed the nature of rebellion. When I was young, smoking a joint or sneaking a beer felt like acts of defiance against adult authority. But in a world where parents and grandparents are posting selfies and sharing memes, how does one rebel? For some youth, abstaining from substances their parents use might be the ultimate act of generational differentiation.

The normalization and legalization of cannabis in many areas have also played a role. As weed becomes more mainstream and socially accepted, it loses its countercultural edge. The image of cannabis has shifted from a symbol of rebellion to something your cool aunt does to relax after work. This transformation may have inadvertently made it less appealing to youth seeking to establish their own identity.

Lastly, we can’t ignore the practical aspects. As more adults turn to legal dispensaries for their cannabis, the street market that traditionally supplied curious teens has faced stiff competition. Legal establishments with strict ID checks have made it harder for underage users to access cannabis, potentially contributing to the decline in youth use.

In essence, today’s youth aren’t necessarily more virtuous or health-conscious than previous generations. They’re simply products of their environment – an environment that offers myriad digital distractions, blurs the lines of generational rebellion, and increasingly restricts access to substances. As we continue to navigate this shifting landscape, it’s crucial to remember that while reduced substance use among youth is generally positive, it doesn’t tell the whole story of their well-being. The challenges and pressures faced by today’s young people are unique, and our understanding and support should evolve accordingly.

 

As we turn our attention to the other end of the age spectrum, an intriguing trend emerges. While youth cannabis use is on the decline, adults over 50 are blazing up in record numbers. This demographic has become one of the fastest-growing segments of cannabis consumers, leaving many to wonder: why are the “olds” suddenly embracing their inner stoner?

To understand this phenomenon, we need to dive into the fascinating world of the endocannabinoid system. This complex network of receptors in our bodies doesn’t fully mature until around age 25. As we age, our natural endocannabinoid production tends to decline, leading to what some researchers call “endocannabinoid deficiency.” This can manifest in various ways, from mood disturbances to physical discomfort.

Enter cannabis. When older adults consume marijuana, they’re essentially giving their endocannabinoid system a much-needed boost. It’s like adding oil to a squeaky machine – suddenly, things start running more smoothly. Many report improvements in sleep, mood, and general well-being. It’s not just about getting high; for many, it’s about feeling balanced and functional.

Moreover, as we age, our bodies become less resilient to the effects of alcohol. A night of heavy drinking in your 20s might result in a manageable hangover, but the same indulgence in your 50s or 60s can knock you out for days. Cannabis, on the other hand, offers a gentler experience. You can enjoy an evening toke and still be ready to face the day come morning. For many older adults juggling work, family, and other responsibilities, this is a significant advantage.

Accessibility is another crucial factor. As more states legalize cannabis, it’s becoming increasingly easy for adults to walk into a dispensary and purchase high-quality, regulated products. Gone are the days of relying on sketchy dealers or questionable sources. This ease of access, combined with the normalization of cannabis use, has made it a more appealing option for older adults who might have been hesitant in the past.

Let’s not forget the economic aspect. In many cases, cannabis can be a more cost-effective option than alcohol, especially when consumed in moderation. A single joint can provide an evening’s worth of relaxation, often at a lower cost than a night out drinking. For retirees or those on fixed incomes, this economic advantage can be particularly appealing.

The health benefits of cannabis, especially when compared to alcohol, can’t be overstated. While excessive use of any substance can be harmful, moderate cannabis consumption doesn’t carry the same risks of liver damage, addiction, or long-term health consequences associated with alcohol abuse. For older adults looking to unwind without compromising their health, cannabis presents an attractive alternative.

In essence, the rising popularity of cannabis among older adults is a perfect storm of biological, practical, and social factors. It offers a way to potentially improve health and well-being, provides a gentler recreational experience, and aligns with changing social norms. As more research emerges on the potential benefits of cannabis for age-related issues, we may see this trend continue to grow.

Of course, it’s important to note that cannabis use, like any substance, should be approached responsibly and with an understanding of potential risks and interactions with medications. But for many in the over-50 crowd, it seems that cannabis is proving to be a welcome addition to their golden years.

Who would have thought that the “reefer madness” generation would end up being the ones to fully embrace the green revolution?

 

CANNABIS USE DROPS AMONG YOUTH, READ MORE..

WHY TEEN MARIJUANA USE DROPS AFTER LEGALIZATION

WHY CANNABIS USE DROPS 9% IN TEENS AFTER LEGALIZATION!

 

 



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media