Connect with us

Cannabis News

The Dark Side of Legalization vs. the Dark Side of Prohibition

Published

on


cost benefits cannabis

Dark side Vs Darkside – An in depth Risk/Benefit Analysis

 

Pitting the “Dark Side” of Legalization vs the “Dark Side” of Prohibition

 

As I got ready to do my research for my next batch of articles, I stumbled upon a cannabis opinion that spoke about the “dark side of legalization”. According to the author, the experimentation of legalization has failed on all fronts and argued that despite the general support for cannabis legalization – it’s a bad idea.

 

As one would expect, there has been a lot of pushback on this article trying to disprove some of the wild claims in the article.

 

In fact, I’m going to use it and compare it to the “Dark side” of prohibition. While the author might think that he’s “check mated” everyone, I’m going to show him that even if cannabis isn’t living up to the expectations – it’s infinitely better than the prohibition alternative.

 

This article is going to be a masterclass in dismantling Prohibitionist rhetoric and a staunch reminded that “prohibition= death” – in the hundreds of thousands.

 

As always, I’ll be quoting the Times Article and responding to each claim.

 

Here we go!

 

 

Of all the ways to win a culture war, the smoothest is to just make the other side seem hopelessly uncool. So it’s been with the march of marijuana legalization: There have been moral arguments about the excesses of the drug war and medical arguments about the potential benefits of pot, but the vibe of the whole debate has pitted the chill against the uptight, the cool against the square, the relaxed future against the Principal Skinners of the past. – Ross Douthat

 

While it’s true the uptightness of prohibitionists is evident – the debate surrounding cannabis legalization has never been about “cool vs uncool”. I’ve been writing on cannabis culture, events, etc for over 15-years and throughout this time have I never used this rhetoric to win arguments.

 

While Douthat wants to pit prohibitionists as just “old timey folk” who simply aren’t “cool enough” to understand legalization – the truth of the matter is that if you’re going to want to be a prohibitionist, you can’t just eat around the fecal matter in the middle of the “shit sandwich” that is prohibition.

 

It’s not about cool or uncool, it’s always been about power, control, human rights, and human health. It’s about policies that take non-crimes and turn them into crimes. It’s about police resources being wasted on prosecuting non-violent crimes. It’s about wasting taxpayer money. It’s about bodily autonomy.

 

“Cool” and “Uncool” is at the bottom of a very long list of other actually legitimate things that Douthat simply doesn’t want to look at – so while he is presenting his Darkside, I’ll present my own version of it – but reflecting the Darkside of prohibition.

 

But Lehman explains in detail why the second-order effects of marijuana legalization have mostly vindicated the pessimists and skeptics. First, on the criminal justice front, the expectation that legalizing pot would help reduce America’s prison population by clearing out nonviolent offenders was always overdrawn, since marijuana convictions made up a small share of the incarceration rate even at its height. But Lehman argues that there is also no good evidence so far that legalization reduces racially discriminatory patterns of policing and arrests. In his view, cops often use marijuana as a pretext to search someone they suspect of a more serious crime, and they simply substitute some other pretext when the law changes, leaving arrest rates basically unchanged.

 

In this section, Douthat simply echoes the sentiments of another “libertarian turned prohibitionist”. In this case, he argues that “legalizing would help reduce the prison population” and while there is a case for this – the impact of legalization would be better judged in “arrest rates”.

 

Many people who get busted for pot – especially these days – get cited for misdemeanors because there is already a great “decriminalization effect” in many places. Very few places will actually send you to prison for an ounce.

 

However, “arrests” and similar actions are far more common. In fact, cannabis was a “carte blanche” for law enforcement to arrest or search anyone they like. It would be a weapon in their hands to get people to cooperate, and it was used by Nixon to silence war protestors.

 

Cannabis was never meant to be on the Control Substance Act, according to Nixon’s own commission and, by the admission of one of his staffers – was purely motivated by political reasons to disrupt anti war protests.

 

Now, let’s start talking economics. How much does a marijuan arrest (NOT Imprisonment) cost the US tax payer?

 

The ACLU claims that every weed arrest costs the American taxpayer $750, and states spend more than $500 million per annum to arrest people for cannabis possession.

 

More importantly, every arrest occupies the time of a law enforcement officer. It jams up the criminal justice system and reduces law enforcement’s ability to focus on actual crimes.

 

This has always been the core argument for cannabis legalization. Federally speaking, “simple possession” is almost never present but most people get charged with “intent to distribute”. This is a key difference.

 

When it comes to quantity it matters because you get charged for different crimes. If you have a pound, you’ll not get charged as a person who consumes a lot of weed – you’ll be charged as a dealer.

 

To overlook this fact within the argument of arrests/imprisonment is negligible. Which is why the argument that legalization had zero impact on incarceration rates is false.

 

The Dark Side of prohibition shows us that by keeping cannabis illegal, you give the police unprecedented power to seize your property and your person based on a non-lethal, non-violent act and can increase your jail time based on quantity.

REEFER MADNESS WASHINGTON EXAMINER

 

So legalization isn’t necessarily striking a great blow against mass incarceration or for racial justice. Nor is it doing great things for public health. There was hope, and some early evidence, that legal pot might substitute for opioid use, but some of the more recent data cuts the other way: A new paper published in The Journal of Health Economics found that “legal medical marijuana, particularly when available through retail dispensaries, is associated with higher opioid mortality.” There are therapeutic benefits to cannabis that justify its availability for prescription, but the evidence of its risks keeps increasing: This month brought a new paper strengthening the link between heavy pot use and the onset of schizophrenia in young men.

 

Firstly, when checking out study he cited claiming that marijuana had a higher opioid mortality within the abstract they have this sentence, “A likely mechanism for these effects is the emergence of illicit fentanyl…”

 

Meaning that, “illegally produced fentanyl” is likely to blame for the increased deaths. Furthermore, medical cannabis legalization and cannabis legalization in general has shown to decrease the use of opioids.

 

A recent study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that patients having access to medical marijuana for a longer duration led to a decrease in prescription opioid use for chronic pain. Other studies have also linked legalization of medical marijuana to a decrease in opioid prescriptions. In states that have legalized medical marijuana, opioid prescriptions decreased by 2.11 million daily doses a year, which increased to 3.7 million when dispensaries opened up. Another study by the University of Kentucky found that states that had legalized medical marijuana saw a 5.9% drop in opioid prescriptions.

 

With a reduction of daily doses between 2.11 – 3.7 million post legalization, this indicates that there is a net positive in terms of public health. To claim otherwise is simply lazy.

 

When it comes to the “Darkside” of prohibition – people are forced to obtain unregulated product or choose a pharmaceutical option. Most cannabis patients opted out of pharmaceuticals due to the negative side effects.

 

But of course, Douthat could give two shits about those who suffer. For him “the smell” is annoying or “some people with mental health disorders could be at risk”. But how many more people are there with chronic illness, with PTSD, with anxiety disorders, with eating disorders – that utilize cannabis safely to treat their symptoms.

 

Do they not matter? Do we only talk about the adverse effects and ignore all the positives?

 

And the broad downside risks of marijuana, beyond extreme dangers like schizophrenia, remain as evident as ever: a form of personal degradation, of lost attention and performance and motivation, that isn’t mortally dangerous in the way of heroin but that can damage or derail an awful lot of human lives. Most casual pot smokers won’t have this experience, but the legalization era has seen a sharp increase in the number of noncasual users. Occasional use has risen substantially since 2008, but daily or near-daily use is up much more, with around 1‌‌6 million Americans, out of ‌more than 50 million users, now suffering from what ‌‌is termed marijuana use disorder.

 

“Personal degradation?” I know countless long term cannabis users who have no “personal degradation”. They are focused, disciplined, and high achievers. As you can note, this is pure prohibitionist rhetoric – attacking the character of a “stereotype” while ignoring the performance of the individual.

While the vast majority of the daily users aren’t “problematic” in their behavioral assessments according to the DSM-V – marijuana use disorder is incredibly subjective. Most people also tend to modulate their consumption over the years.

 

Yet, these behavioral norms are often ignored to support particular narratives. Furthermore, alcohol also has the “potential to derail”, so under Douthat’s reasoning we should outlaw this as well?

 

Video games? Social Media? Sports? Sex? All of these things has the potential to become problematic and if that is the metric to prohibit them – life is going to get boring quite quickly.

 

 

In practice, it hasn’t worked that way. Because of all the years of prohibition, a mature and supple illegal marketplace already exists, ready to undercut whatever prices the legal market charges. So to make the legal marketplace successful and amenable to regulation, you would probably need much more enforcement against the illegal marketplace — which is difficult and expensive and, again, obviously uncool, in conflict with the good-vibrations spirit of the legalizers.

 

While this is somewhat true, the reasons why the black market continues to thrive are two fold. Partial legalization coupled with over-regulation. You can’t simply legalize cannabis and tax the hell out of it to compete with the black market.

 

I have written on this extensively and proposed a 2-Tier system which would effectively make the “public tier” compete with the black market and have the “private tier” be reserved for national/international commerce which would require heavier regulation.

 

You can read about that here.

 

While Douthat argues that you would need more regulation, the truth of the matter is that you need to decentralize cannabis production in such a way that the black market cannot compete  with the public market, and the private sector aims at providing avenues of mass distribution.

 

I expect legalization to advance much further before either of these alternatives builds significant support. But eventually the culture will recognize that under the banner of personal choice, we’re running a general experiment in exploitation — addicting our more vulnerable neighbors to myriad pleasant-seeming vices, handing our children over to the social media dopamine machine and spreading degradation wherever casinos spring up and weed shops flourish.

 

With that realization, and only with that realization, will the squares get the hearing they deserve.

 

Once again, we’re seeing the word “degradation” being used. An assumption that the majority of cannabis users are “suffering” or “stupid”. Even within Douthat’s own words – the majority of users won’t suffer these consequences.

 

Yet, because a minority “could be affected” – he would rather opt in for harsher policies that strip the individual from their own faculties. They no longer become “owners of their own bodies” but rather need to follow the rules set forth by others.

 

The word you’re looking for is “slavery”. I wrote about that here.

 

I don’t know what Douthat’s views on life is, but by reading his other material one could assume that he’s in favor of “women’s right to choose”. You know, abortion rights and all that jazz.

 

Yet, women only have rights when it comes to abortion. If a woman chooses to smoke weed or do any other drug – Douthat would much rather see her in jail as with anyone else.

 

For someone who speaks of “wokeness” – it seems to me that he is in fact more aligned with his “conservative counterparts” than he claims to be.

 

Society isn’t exploiting anyone. Certain corporations are. Social Media, games, alcohol, entertainment…hell, the very publication that he writes for utilizes their clout to sway political opinion. Running Op Eds that favor a particular political ideology.

 

The point is, there is a disconnect between these alleged “progressives” that talk about equity and rights, but then want Uncle Sam to violently rape the rights and liberties of those who don’t align with their own internalized view of the world.

 

Does cannabis legalization come with flaws? Yes! The way we are legalizing it is not the best. I wrote about the answer, and it’s far simpler than one would think.

 

The problem is “how” it’s being done and understanding that government is interested in money over the rights of people – is why the problems of the black market persist.

 

The fact of the matter is that there is a whole aspect of prohibition Douthat ignores which is the countless dead bodies that results from drug prohibition. You see, all the drugs being produced by illegal cartels and sold under prohibition makes them problematic.

 

In Mexico, during 2006-2011, there were hundreds of thousands of dead bodies as a result of the drug war. In the 1980s, Colombia saw tens of thousands of dead bodies as a result of prohibition.

 

HSBC and many other major banks were caught  laundering money for cartels.Dirty drugs were sold for profits, people were ODing and left  to die due to punitive drug laws. The police stole billions of dollars without convicting anyone for a crime – and the list goes on.

 

Prohibition is far more sinister than legalization. In every metric, for every argument…legalization simply is the better option. If you’re worried about the negatives, work on creating policies of education – invest in empowering people, instead of trying to limit their freedom through draconian “right leaning” laws that was literally founded on deception and racism…but hey Douthat the “progressive liberal” seems to be totally okay with that.

 

HEALTH BENEFITS AND SAVING LIVES, READ ON…

SAVING LIVES WITH LEGALIZATION

47,000 LIVES A YEAR SAVED WITH CANNABIS LEGALIZATION?



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