Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

What consequences? Observed how and by whom?

ERs, physicians, family, friends, people who encounter your skunky-smelling self in public when you're blazed out of your mind...

Just like I thought. You are just a lunatic who can't participate in serious discussions about this.

You're resorting to name-calling without offering anything constructive to the "serious discussion" and pp is the "lunatic"?

You must be high!

Yup, and I stand by it. Please provide credible studies without hyperbole and I’ll have a discussion with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

What consequences? Observed how and by whom?

ERs, physicians, family, friends, people who encounter your skunky-smelling self in public when you're blazed out of your mind...

Just like I thought. You are just a lunatic who can't participate in serious discussions about this.

You're resorting to name-calling without offering anything constructive to the "serious discussion" and pp is the "lunatic"?

You must be high!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

What consequences? Observed how and by whom?

ERs, physicians, family, friends, people who encounter your skunky-smelling self in public when you're blazed out of your mind...

Just like I thought. You are just a lunatic who can't participate in serious discussions about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

What consequences? Observed how and by whom?

ERs, physicians, family, friends, people who encounter your skunky-smelling self in public when you're blazed out of your mind...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

What consequences? Observed how and by whom?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Correct. PP's claim that "more potent means less consumed for the same effect" doesn't hold up. Not only are people consuming more, but it's often WAY more than they might've meant to, and the consequences are considerable.

So OP do you use cannabis regularly? Is that why you're concerned?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Totally disagree. I’ve seen serious health problems

Anonymous wrote:My friend has totally lost her memory from edibles.

Concentrates and distillates and extracts are the least-regulated of all cannabis consumables, so this tracks. Who even knows what's in their edibles?

Anonymous wrote:The Atlantic is very untrustworthy.

The anon on an anon board is very untrustworthy.

The science, however, is sound.

Anonymous wrote:Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

This math works on paper, and is not supported by evidence/real-life experience.

Classic fear mongering. More potent means less consumed for the same effect.

The Atlantic is very untrustworthy.

My friend has totally lost her memory from edibles.

Did anyone see this Atlantic article about how the newer high-THC strains of cannabis are dangerous, and what might be done to mitigate some of the potential harm?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/08/high-potency-marijuana-regulation/679639/