When it was available back then it was always some low quality dirt weed that you could smoke for days and still function on.
With the legal recreational stuff, I was so blasted out of my mind that I couldn't hold a conversation. I had a mild panic attack because of slow playing music, and was high for the rest of the night. It was not fun, it was scary.
Maybe my tolerance has decreased, sure, but the strength differences in modern recreational weed are so severe that they probably should not be considered to be the same drug any longer.
If what was available to me as a teenager was like beer, the new stuff starts at vodka and goes way past Everclear.
I find it disappointing the same'ol propaganda reappear still today for MJ...now all left to do is to find out who sponsored the study this time and dictated the outcome...
That's not always true -- especially among new, naive users.
I knew someone who for their first time smoked an entire joint because they thought that was a single dose.
Unsurprisingly, they had a bad time because they basically overdosed... and that was more than a decade ago, when cannabis was significantly less potent than it is now.
I'm sure there are plenty of new users today who repeat the same mistake with dire (psychological) consequences.
Of course there are also alcohol first-timers who get abolutely shit-faced, that's a really bad trip as well. Probably also some who die of alcohol poisoning.
I'm curious, why did you say "dire (psychological) consequences", what do you mean by that?
Many of the vape pens are also extremely potent, and it’s even easier to overuse those.
I’m not saying the old propaganda has any value, but I do think it’s a lot easier than many think to level up to “heavy use” very quickly with modern offerings.
But even at insanely high concentrations, you’re still most likely to just have a bad time, not get seriously injured.
This should be addressed by education though, not regulation/propaganda.
It would be very surprising if there weren't (at least) a substantial minority of weed-smokers who have trouble knowing when to stop.
With food the issue is how our body is tricked to not feel full when in fact through more sugar and fat he got way too much calories. Then getting addiced to sugar and fat. While of course very problematic, that's a different matter, not directly comparable.
In general though, by nature's design, people start to consume everything unknown slow and increase the amount/dosage. That is how we function.
The fact some people do not know moderation, for various reasons, is not a sound argument for prohibition. Some will always abuse anything.
You can die of drinking too much water, and certainly people did in the past. Can you prevent that from happening, by controlling the access to water somehow? No.
In my opinion the more nonsensical idea is to try to forcefully protect people from doing harm to themselfes, when common sense and normal behavior will do on its own. There is free will and autonomy over the own body. That's the limit of regulation.
The better aproach is education in a honest, factual way.
The first study is commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the second was funded by a Senior Academic Fellowship from the Society for the Study of Addiction.
The larger scientific discussion where study is confirmed is after peer review.
On HN, they are specifically disagreed with super often. Especially anything "softer" It is not like it was taboo.
And second, it is not scientific behavior to treat a single study as gospel. It is scientific when consensus emerges from many different studies and when those are reproduced and verified.
Pearl clutching over "peer-review" mostly suggests people don't know what peer review can or can not do.
No "science denial". Questioning of this specific study and disregarding your appeals for authority.