Micro-dosing

[MinnBobber]

Nope. I like micro dosing both in the true sense, and in the sense used here, but that's not to say I have anything against the high part of Cannabis. I just don't think it's perfectly harmless like many of you.

So far, everyone who has "called me out", has failed, by misunderstanding what they are even arguing against.

.......................................................................................................................................................................

@EverythingsHazy I'm not sure you understand what you are arguing for/against ????
You don't think cannabis is "perfectly harmless" so you seem to be looking for proof that it causes absolutely no harm to brain matter etc , rather than looking at both sides of the equation. Your standard seems to be, absent 100% proof that it causes no harm, we have "failed".
Looking at the whole picture is what is important , what are cannabis health benefits VS cannabis harmful health attributes?

Let me ask you, what do you think the "benefit : harm ratio" of cannabis is?

If any reasonable, unbiased person has done any kind of basic research , that ratio certainly is gigantic.
That's especially so, if you weight the pluses and minuses (e.g. where positive cannabis results on epilepsy count more than
cannabis negative of causing cotton-mouth).
Where in eye health, managing glaucoma counts more than bloodshot eyes (which is even a stretch for a negative when vaping).
On brain health, cannabis is showing to be a neuro-protector and a neuro-regenerative agent (miraculous). It's showing to reduce brain plaque buildup, have spectacular results on PTSD, etc etc. It is reversing age-related memory loss in lab mice.
It has reduced opioid overdose deaths in MMJ states by 24.8%.

What do you think the medical "benefit : harm ratio" of cannabis is? Multiple choice:
10: 1, 100:1, 1,000 : 1, 10,000 :1 ???
The more I think about, even 10,000 : 1 doesn't give cannabis enough credit, based on what we know about it today .

Signed,
unbiased in MN, just looking at what is known today

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

EverythngsHazy, you're making some good points acknowledging the presence of the
negative aspects of cannabis use which I also think exist, objectively speaking. I think we have enough studies with some pretty damning evidence showing psychoactives DO alter and stunt a developing brain, and for that reason I believe it shouldn't be used with regularity until the brain has completely developed, which, if you want to get technical is around 25. I wish I could've taken my own advice on this now that I'm a bit older/wiser. if I could go back and do it all over again I would at least try to make to 20-21 before my regular use started. And I would just t

As far as your assessment of dosing, I'm with the others. You can't try and dictate the subscale of effects relative to exact microdose size on paper when the subject matter is 0.05 or less. There are far too many variations of THC tolerance levels simply due to differences in peoples' body compositions, let alone regular cannabis users' widely varying tolerance levels. You can't be all, "its not a real microdose if you feel somethiiing" (special ed voice). You're basically trying to rename microdose to nanodose but don't want to admit it. Besides, the amount of change over a period of time is only measurable by the user experiencing the effects; that's all we have to go by. Its up to each user to responsibly interpret and parse his own experience when he's trying to determine his ideal MD. "Sub-buzz"? Been there, done that many times. Not really into it. I'd rather stay sober. Remember, it's a 1-10 scale, not an on/off switch.

 

[invertedisdead]

lol you guys are wasting your time, it's obvious he legitimately believes he is the leading authority on cannabis and everyone else here is uneducated on the subject compared to him.

 

[chris 71]

lol you guys are wasting your time, it's obvious he legitimately believes he is the leading authority on cannabis and everyone else here is uneducated on the subject compared to him.

i agree just ignore him ... how about the question i posted ? what do you guys think of my puffing method ? and dose you could get sublingualy from the decarboxylated oil ? truthfully im just trying to get my tolerance back up so i can vape like i used to all day lol but this puffing aint bad either

 

[EverythingsHazy]

It is not my failure in calling you out it is yours in shrouding your intentions. Every single person who has attempted to disagree with you has pointed out that it is well known that cannabis use has a whole raft of issues, COPD, dependence and tolerance issues and potentially physical and mental effects undiscovered. You indicate that there is more we can't understand/acknowledge because we are "potheads." Something you clearly hold yourself apart from. But you don't elaborate. So what problem are we missing? And what "benefits" do you get, physically or mentally if you can't even perceive them? Lets be more clear about that at least?

I haven't shrouded anything. Just because Cannabis is good for many things, doesn't mean it isn't possibly bad for others. A lot of chemicals that help one thing, can cause just the opposite effects in some people, or in the wrong doses. Just because Cannabis can help prevent Alzheimer's disease, doesn't make it impossible for it to cause negative brain/memory effects. I'm just more open to those possibilities than most others here.

i agree just ignore him ... how about the question i posted ? what do you guys think of my puffing method ? and dose you could get sublingualy from the decarboxylated oil ? truthfully im just trying to get my tolerance back up so i can vape like i used to all day lol but this puffing aint bad either

You like a bunch of my posts, and then go and be rude lol.

You guys get so hurt when anyone mentions any negatives about Cannabis.

EverythngsHazy, you're making some good points acknowledging the presence of the
negative aspects of cannabis use which I also think exist, objectively speaking. I think we have enough studies with some pretty damning evidence showing psychoactives DO alter and stunt a developing brain, and for that reason I believe it shouldn't be used with regularity until the brain has completely developed, which, if you want to get technical is around 25. I wish I could've taken my own advice on this now that I'm a bit older/wiser. if I could go back and do it all over again I would at least try to make to 20-21 before my regular use started. And I would just t

As far as your assessment of dosing, I'm with the others. You can't try and dictate the subscale of effects relative to exact microdose size on paper when the subject matter is 0.05 or less. There are far too many variations of THC tolerance levels simply due to differences in peoples' body compositions, let alone regular cannabis users' widely varying tolerance levels. You can't be all, "its not a real microdose if you feel somethiiing" (special ed voice). You're basically trying to rename microdose to nanodose but don't want to admit it. Besides, the amount of change over a period of time is only measurable by the user experiencing the effects; that's all we have to go by. Its up to each user to responsibly interpret and parse his own experience when he's trying to determine his ideal MD. "Sub-buzz"? Been there, done that many times. Not really into it. I'd rather stay sober. Remember, it's a 1-10 scale, not an on/off switch.

Special ed voice? Mocking the way someone SPEAKS on a text only thread. Way to make yourself look dumb.

Nowhere is it proven that having a different tolerance to the buzz you get from THC, makes you more immune to it a brain structure altering effects.





*Edit*
I won't be debating the health risks of Cannabis use, in this thread, anymore. There are other threads for that. Whoever doesn't want to listen to both sides without arguing, can just stay out of those.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Delete*

 

[hinglemccringleberry]

You guys get so hurt when anyone mentions any negatives about Cannabis.


Special ed voice? Mocking the way someone SPEAKS on a text only thread. Way to make yourself look dumb.

Nowhere is it proven that having a different tolerance to the buzz you get from THC, makes you more immune to it a brain structure altering effects.





I won't be posting in this thread anymore, since it's just a bunch of people who want to rename "small doses" to "micro doses", and pretend that Cannabis' only potential harm is if you smoke 1,500lbs of it. Both sides, the positives and the negatives, are worth discussing, without bias.

Welp, nevermind, I tried to be nice and acknowledge those negatives but its apparent you're either a clever troll or a lost cause whos too stubborn to see the argumentative fallacies in some of your comments, that's why no one here can take you seriously anymore. You conveniently ignore comments that expose your BS and only fire back at the remainder (some of which i agree with) like the expert cherrypicker that you are. So many are against you not even because of your stance but because youre a contentious hypocrite with more pride than common sense. Adiós, you wont be missed.

 

[Ohmie]

We're debating over the potential risks of .05g and under, which leads me to question my own existence in debating on it. I see the infintismal questions e.Hazy has from a mile away except for the part where effects from .01g is cause for rethinking the life choice you're about to make. If there's a root of all evil this must be it

 

[EverythingsHazy]

Edited my previous post.

Going further, I'm not discussing anything other than small dose Cannabis use in this thread. I still don't consider getting a strong buzz, a "micro dose", but I'm not discussing that here either.

 

[Ohmie]

When it's about .01 increments then to each is own. I use to steal crumbs from the guy rolling the joints and almost dare him to mention it

 

[chris 71]

You like a bunch of my posts, and then go and be rude lol.

You guys get so hurt when anyone mentions any negatives about Cannabis.

just tired of you constantly trying to push the brain damage bit . you ask for peoples input on the issue specifically . in this thread and a few others .

i post being the perfect candidate for your question and worries . im only one person but , i have a long history with cannabis 33 years actually . on and off , but years and years of what would be considered chronic use .
im one of the ones they say are most susceptible to the damaged brain theory , those that started young . i first started using it at the age of 13 . i have had my brain looked at by one of the best ways possible in our current day and age . with my doctor knowing my cannabis history .

my brain was normal for all intents and purposes no damage was seen . im pretty sure that means no damage .

you kind of just brushed this off and right back to asking for like , scientists and doctors to hopefully respond to your worries with ultimate answers .

i even offer you an idea , perhaps you can focus your fears on something a little more tangible . as in mental health damages . because they are harder to find physical damage as evidence . but no you just go right back to the brain damage bit . for fun i even link a you tube video for you as to were the first idea of this brain damage thing came from .

after a while it just gets hard reading and responding to someone who just keeps on it . i think your stuck on this issue there is more stuff to worry about in life . you might as well wrap your self in bubble wrap and were a helmet for the rest of your life .

 

[TeeJay1952]

IMHO Much of 'increased tolerance" can be ascribed to folks getting lazy on
TECHNIQUE.
If we approach each bowl, stem, dose with the attention that we gave when we first vaped (preheat, slower is hotter, stir, start pull slow till vapor and then increase pull, Less is more, airflow is King and all the other stuff you have learned over the years than most of us would be microdosing.

Let's remember to be nice and not take (or give) personal.

 

[shredder]

Not sure if they micro dosed but there is evidense cannabis has been used by humans for over 5000 years. It seems likely that if it caused brain damage we would know by now.

I think cannabis has formed a wonderful mutually beneficial relationship with humans, well most humans, lol.

 

[C No Ego]

here it is- as so in a real life comparison to a micro dose of endocannabinoids... say you work up a runners high by jogging a mile.... you then start to feel that warm wave of euphoria and an all out body high from all of the endocannabinoids firing for your rejuvenation and cellular health.... that example is a natural boosting of the endocannabinoid system ( ECS) via strenuous activity... that seems to be a micro dose and the person felt it right ?!? there was a feeling of relief and euphoria ( natural high)...

now, add a tiny boost of plant cannabinoids via vaping and see how you feel the same way as the runners high... even though it wwas a tiny dose it still washed over you in a relief scenario ...

 

[C No Ego]

Not sure if they micro dosed but there is evidense cannabis has been used by humans for over 5000 years. It seems likely that if it caused brain damage we would know by now.

I think cannabis has formed a wonderful mutually beneficial relationship with humans, well most humans, lol.

the last 50 years or so has been more of a recreational based approach to cannabis like just having fun etc.... the last few years we've reverted back to trying a balance of high and health and the subsequent cannabis molecules that target that balanced premise... like cbd for example being reintoduced to the masses and people wanting to just get a relief with no euphoria...

 

[shredder]

the last 50 years or so has been more of a recreational based approach to cannabis like just having fun etc.... the last few years we've reverted back to trying a balance of high and health and the subsequent cannabis molecules that target that balanced premise... like cbd for example being reintoduced to the masses and people wanting to just get a relief with no euphoria...

It's just that we're evolving, but we do have thousands of years of medical cannabis use. That we are now breeding cbd back into plants, can't be seen as something new. Its true that we are just now identifying individual cannabinoids, but growers have been targeting medical (and presumably recreactional) effects basically forever.

Cannabis was used as an anasethic in ancient china. I'm thinking it was bubba Kush, or maybe 9 pound hammer lol.

 

[howie105]

MJ use is all about an individuals risk tolerance and expectations, even after coming to grips with all the details for themselves they have a solution size of one. Coming up with a solution (not only facts but desires as well) to fit all vape users is a much larger lift. My take listen to what is offered, take away what you want and do what makes sense to you.

 

[C No Ego]

It's just that we're evolving, but we do have thousands of years of medical cannabis use. That we are now breeding cbd back into plants, can't be seen as something new. Its true that we are just now identifying individual cannabinoids, but growers have been targeting medical (and presumably recreactional) effects basically forever.

Cannabis was used as an anasethic in ancient china. I'm thinking it was bubba Kush, or maybe 9 pound hammer lol.

Monk Kush! the little hairless dudes looking for God in all things breeding cannabis on the hill found enlightenment!

 

[EverythingsHazy]

just tired of you constantly trying to push the brain damage bit . you ask for peoples input on the issue specifically . in this thread and a few others .

i post being the perfect candidate for your question and worries . im only one person but , i have a long history with cannabis 33 years actually . on and off , but years and years of what would be considered chronic use .
im one of the ones they say are most susceptible to the damaged brain theory , those that started young . i first started using it at the age of 13 . i have had my brain looked at by one of the best ways possible in our current day and age . with my doctor knowing my cannabis history .

my brain was normal for all intents and purposes no damage was seen . im pretty sure that means no damage .

you kind of just brushed this off and right back to asking for like , scientists and doctors to hopefully respond to your worries with ultimate answers .

i even offer you an idea , perhaps you can focus your fears on something a little more tangible . as in mental health damages . because they are harder to find physical damage as evidence . but no you just go right back to the brain damage bit . for fun i even link a you tube video for you as to were the first idea of this brain damage thing came from .

after a while it just gets hard reading and responding to someone who just keeps on it . i think your stuck on this issue there is more stuff to worry about in life . you might as well wrap your self in bubble wrap and were a helmet for the rest of your life .

You did post some good info. You're just one person, tho. On a forum full of Cannabis users, with many people claiming to use strictly for medical purposes, getting more than just a few anecdotal responses shouldn't be a problem. If you don't like ongoing discussion, don't read it. It's easy enough to skip posts you aren't interested in.

I will never understand why people here take it personally when someone asks for multiple opinions. Reposting the same answers over and over doesn't help anyone, especially if the people get more annoyed each time they're answer doesnt end the discussion. If we can have a >30page discussion on using small doses, we can have a handful of posts about potential negatives of daily use. Now, let's get back on topic. If anyone wishes to further discuss the brain issue, go to
the brain effect thread. If not, just don't.

It's just that we're evolving, but we do have thousands of years of medical cannabis use. That we are now breeding cbd back into plants, can't be seen as something new. Its true that we are just now identifying individual cannabinoids, but growers have been targeting medical (and presumably recreactional) effects basically forever.

Cannabis was used as an anasethic in ancient china. I'm thinking it was bubba Kush, or maybe 9 pound hammer lol.

I'm pretty sure that overall, Cannabis has never has as high a THC:CBD ratio, as it does today. It used to have a much closer ratio, and then people started breeding for recreational sale appeal, which created strains with insanely high THC and very low amounts of anything else's.

Only recently, in light of more legalization efforts and medical information, has the breeding of CBD heavy strains come back into the light. Sure, it was likely done before by some people, but finding CBD heavy bud was nearly impossible, and it still is, if you aren't in a legal region.

 

[C No Ego]

Still, in order to know " micro-dose" we have to determine what is it we are dosing...
if you can eat or juice the cannabis plant raw so as not to activate it where it makes you high, were you actually dosed? sure, you consumed the plant chemicals, yet they were not active plant chemicals so no dose happened IMO...

So, by that measure only active/ activated cannabis plant chemicals represent the dose and how those actives effect you personally is the macro/micro of it... just like drinking alcohol, some people can drink a gallon of booze and walk away fine while with others, a few sips and they are staggering drunk... the same can be said for cannabis in that some people handle it better than others while effects are realized on a personal level... some people too do not convert the cannabinoids and get no high from any of it... there receptors are dulled and no amount of actives will signal through dull/dead receptors...

 

[Used2use]

I'm pretty sure that overall, Cannabis has never has as high a THC:CBD ratio, as it does today. It used to have a much closer ratio, and then people started breeding for recreational sale appeal, which created strains with insanely high THC and very low amounts of anything else's.

What makes u so shure?
Afaik that myth was born with a 90's study that compared actual weed with some samples that were laying +30 years in police storage. The results were that the fresh weed had high thc and the old one as much thc as cbd - the mistake in the interpretation was that no one thougt about the degradation of thc to cbd over 30 years in bad storage...
A strain like blueberry dates back to the 70s and a good selection of it is still good today

 

[chris 71]

Thc dosent turn into cbd it degrades to cbn. And for the most part a cannabis plant either produces mainly thc or mainly cbd .

the more one to one ratios we see nowadays are few and far between as far as being found in nature , and more to do with modern day breeding .

The reason weed from the past had more cbd was becase both the cbd varites and the thc varites were all harvested together and mixed together . this is the reason old school hash had more of a mixed ratio as well . because a whole field was harvested together . so you would get a mix of the thc type plants mixed with the cbd type

 

[EverythingsHazy]

What makes u so shure?
Afaik that myth was born with a 90's study that compared actual weed with some samples that were laying +30 years in police storage. The results were that the fresh weed had high thc and the old one as much thc as cbd - the mistake in the interpretation was that no one thougt about the degradation of thc to cbd over 30 years in bad storage...
A strain like blueberry dates back to the 70s and a good selection of it is still good today

I'm pretty sure breeding is a lot more advanced in the past few decades, than it was hundreds or thousands of years ago. Couple that, with the focus towards high THC strains, and it's not hard to believe that modern Cannabis (especially unpollinaed buds) is far more potent in regard s to THC content and ratios.

Growing techniques have also vastly improved over the last few decades.

Still, in order to know " micro-dose" we have to determine what is it we are dosing...
if you can eat or juice the cannabis plant raw so as not to activate it where it makes you high, were you actually dosed? sure, you consumed the plant chemicals, yet they were not active plant chemicals so no dose happened IMO...

So, by that measure only active/ activated cannabis plant chemicals represent the dose and how those actives effect you personally is the macro/micro of it... just like drinking alcohol, some people can drink a gallon of booze and walk away fine while with others, a few sips and they are staggering drunk... the same can be said for cannabis in that some people handle it better than others while effects are realized on a personal level... some people too do not convert the cannabinoids and get no high from any of it... there receptors are dulled and no amount of actives will signal through dull/dead receptors...

I think this thread is mainly focused on THC microdosing, since that's the main buzz causing chemical in Cannabis, and therefore, the main factor behind the buzz people are mentioning achieving while using small amounts.

In regards to alcohol and dosing, do you consider the doses different in the following two scenarios?

-Person A has no tolerance and drinks 3 beers in an hour.

-Person B has a high tolerance and drinks 3 beers in an hour.


I don't, which is why I don't buy into the "what's considered micro dosing is dependent on tolerance levels" mindset. I believe that if a person has a higher tolerance, and has to use more than a determined "micro dose" weight, they are no longer micro dosing, regardless of how mildly the perceive the effects.

The THC is still affecting their body, whether or not they are perceiving themselves to be very buzzed or not. Sure it might not be affecting them in the same exact way that it would a body that is not used to regular THC doses (the extent of this needs proper research as it differs from drug to drug), but it's like still affecting them more than they are perceiving. The level of buzz you achieve is not necessarily directly correlated with the physical effects that the THC is having on your body.

 

[Used2use]

ok thc degrades to cbn - still any old sample will have less thc than originally, so it's hard to quantify the real quality of the past decades (i believe some old numbers are in rc clarke's hashish book but not for weed, have to reread...)
it's not that i don't believe there has been improvement, but i don't think it's that much as most believe
there are 'unbreed' landrace variations of 25% thc and more out there in the fields - breeding is all about the size of the gene pool to select from, anyone knows how many plants the worlds largest breeder has?
selecting 1 out of 10k plants will yield much quicker better results than decades with only a few hundred...

 

[chris 71]

(i believe some old numbers are in rc clarke's hashish book but not for weed, have to reread...)

Great book , i have it. And yes there is a chart in it with all kinds of thc cbd values from old world hash from long ago . i wish it was easily availible now it would probably be all i would use. Back when i was a teenager we used to get the real deal hash imported from aganistan and lebannon and india and all those places . i remember lebenase red that was soo good and tasty and gold seal black and blond . it was more availible then bud for sure