Skunk 'Bigger Psychosis Risk' Than Other Cannabis Types

how much Gilligan;s island?

I think the psychosis threshold is 87.37 hours.

ahh.. *nods sagely and thoughtfully picks his nose* so well into the range of life threatening toxicity then.

If you stay awake for more than 72 hours you can legaly claim insanity :)

Absolutely. Skunk smells like skunk and is generally a better grade of cannabis. Top shelf. One can not grow skunk cannabis, without seeds carrying skunk cannabis DNA. It's just one of many different strains of cannabis. Hemp seeds also have diffenent strains, which are utilized for different products. Some hemp seeds make stronger rope than others.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on". Cannabis hemp can be the best rope, mentally and physically.

umm.. if you look up the research it turns out that was exactly what they were talking about. Which makes your statement about not listening to people who don't know hat they are talking about a little ironic.

@bombastinator

"The experts believe skunk is particularly damaging because it contains more THC"

The fact is there are many strains of cannabis that are non-skunk variety that contain very high levels of THC, upwards of 20%

I've read several of these BBC articles and it seems clear to me that they are using the word skunk to generalize any high potency herb. They then make a claim that hash is somehow different in that it contains more of the other psychoactive compounds than skunk. My question is, what if that hash is made from skunk bud, does that statement still stand?

This is almost akin to watching that guy on Fear and Loathing talk about how a roach is called a roach because it looks like a cockroach.... I'm not sure why it's actually called a roach, but that guy was still clearly a moron talking about something he didn't fully understand.

My problem with this whole thing is it reminds me of how the slang (and racially charged) term "marijuana" was used to defile what was previously a well known and beneficial plant.

The word skunk in the cannabis connoisseur's world refers to the terpenoids of that specific genetic strain which makes the plant litterally smell like a skunk. Terpenoid characteristics have nothing to do with THC content.

I'm pretty sure I could grow some skunk weed with less than 5% THC... grow it in shitty conditions or cross it with a low THC producing plant like hemp and walla, you have a true "skunk" plant that does not follow the generalization being made by these so-called experts.

... doing some more research because now I'm curious if the terpenoids do effect the high a user gets. I stumbled across a thread that goes into great and gory detail about terpenoid analysis of different cannabis strains. I did find a connoisseur who posted that he thinks they do...:

"
I'm a real limonene and pinene FREAK! Also, whatever makes that sweet seasoning meaty smell in the GG is awesome too (myrcene?).

I am convinced that terpenes/terpenoids play a role in the type of high resulting from different strains of herb.

Skunky strains are always stupifying.

Lemony strains deliver a soaring, uplifting high with fast onset.

Perfumy strains are also uplifting, but not quite as noticeable.

Berry smelling strains are relaxing and mellow.

Piney strains are heavy and stupifying.

Sour grape mixed with black licorice strains are usually quite couchy, but euphoric.

Meaty/seasoning strains are very euphoric and are long lasting (usually creeper too).

Musky/spicy strains tend to be very energetic and can get the heart going.

Of course, there are exceptions to these. I mean, a piney strain that has very little THC is not going to be very heavy. Also, these smells are often mixed together in the same strain, resulting in very complex highs.

Greens
"

Here's the link if you care to read up on cannabis terpenoid analysis...

http://www.cannabis-world.org/cw/showthread.php?t=4911

that is not at all a fair comparison, you actually have it backwards. Hash is from the actual flowering bud, it has way higher levels of the 40 or so cannabinoids than the leaf that is smoked so much more frequently. It is healthier for you because you can smoke much less of it for a much greater affect, and like the article says, without feeling uber baked, well actually that was my term but you get the idea.

how does that apply to the quoted text?!

cannabinoids "can act as an antidote to the THC, counteracting its psychotic side effects."

Bullshit - the BBC is a state-owned medium. You know not what you are blabbering about.

Uh..The government funds the BBC by charging all UK television viewers a license fee.. the British Government IS the rich elite.. you'd be kidding yourself to think BBC isn't highly censored and controlled...

The government is not the same thing as the state.

The British Broadcasting Corporation, usually referred to by its abbreviation as the "BBC", is the longest established and largest broadcaster in the world. The BBC is funded by an annual television licence fee, which is charged to all United Kingdom households using equipment capable of recording and/or receiving live television broadcasts; the level of the fee is set by the UK Government under a multi-year agreement with the Corporation. It operates under a Royal Charter issued by the British Crown.

The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.

The current Charter came into effect on 1 January 2007 and runs until 31 December 2016. The Royal Charter is reviewed every 10 years.

The 2007 Charter specifies that the mission of the Corporation is to "inform, educate and entertain". It states that the Corporation exists to serve the public interest and to promote its public purposes:

* Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
* Promoting education and learning;
* Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
* Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
* Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK;
* Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.

This Charter also created the largest change in the governance of the Corporation since its inception. It abolished the sometimes controversial governing body, the Board of Governors, and replaced it with the BBC Trust and a formalised Executive Board.

The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £142.50 per year per household (as of April 2009). Such a licence is required to receive broadcast television within the UK, however no licence is required to own a television used for other means. The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law. A discount is available for households with only black-and-white television sets. The revenue is collected privately and is paid into the central government Consolidated Fund, a process defined in the Communications Act 2003. This TV Licensing collection is currently carried out by Capita, an outside agency. Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation. Additional revenues are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions to compensate for subsidised licences for eligible over-75 year olds.

Income from commercial enterprises and from overseas sales of its catalogue of programmes has substantially increased over recent years, with BBC Worldwide contributing some £145 million to the BBC's core public service business.

well I see you like to do lots of wiki copy/pasting .. but don't believe everything you read - everything is censored including BBC

and why are you defending BBC when they put shite out like this ?

I copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry because it is absolutely accurate.

The state is not the same thing as the government. The governments change, the state remains.

I am not defending the BBC, I am only pointing out that you are wrong and giving you the correct information.

despite who funds it, the information is censored.

I felt the same way about lucky strike straights back when I smoked 3 packs a day. I'd probably still be doing it if it hadn't given me emphysema.

the article or the research or both?

Ironically that is the same argument the the tobacco companies used about cancer. Psychosis is a touchier thing than cancer though. If the statistics are not actually out and out crap then something is probably going on. What is stil kind of an open question though. Normally I would say that all it might mean is that people with psychosis tend to try self medicate, and it's not so much that pot makes them crazy as being crazy makes them seek out pot. That doesn't explain the jump for skunk though, unless it does. To me it sounds like a "needs more research" situation.

Tank you, you're are absolutely right and said what I wanted to say in a much more simpler way. Marijuana is very beneficial but it effects everyone differently. Some people have bad mental and physical reactions and for some people it is their panacea. Nothing is perfect, but comparatively to other drugs marijuana is a god send.

You have very legitimate points, edge...
I used to smoke pot - schwag, northern lights bred with skunk, skunk, sativa (which I preferred by far), etc......as a rule, pot did not do me right. Maybe if I had stuck with *only* sativa, but some of the shit mixed with skunk did make me kind of crazy....and seriously fucking moody (I will spare you the dramatic details). The last time I smoked was 2007 and I had been smoking off and on since the early 90s...I am way more moody than the average female and see my doc for meds....My prescriptions help me with moods, severe anxiety/depression and my inability to focus.
I think for a lot of people pot works perfectly. I just don't think my body chemistry ever fully agreed with most strains of it. I could seldom shake the paranoia, and it shouldn't be that way.....

Cannabis is neither a narcotic nor a hallucinogenic - it is a psychotropic.

Correcto mundo

The egg came first. Also excessive levels of THC over long periods of time on someone that is susceptible to THC can easily put them into a psychosis. It just depends on a lot of factors with the individual but any hallucinogen can put someone into psychosis if abused.

The people who have psychosis should be treated. If cannabis affects them in a psychotic way, then they should not consume it. What if many things make them psychotic, should we eliminate all those items? Where do we draw the line?

People are responsible for their own choices and actions. I would wager, if cannabis brings on psychosis, there were unaddressed issues in the first place.

Can you please show me evidence that psychosis hasn't been increasing in the last three decades?

I didn't say that psychosis has not been increasing these past three decades - it has increased because the population has increased. However, the PROPORTION or percentage of cases of psychosis relative to the population has remained stable, whereas the PROPORTION or percentage of the population using cannabis, and of late, Skunk, has greatly increased. There are plenty of studies which have demonstrated this.

THC is NOT an endogenous compound.

Your body does NOT produce THC buddy, we have CB^1 receptors in our frontal lobe that process THC specifically. But we don't manufacture it in our bodies. Also too much of a good thing is always a bad thing, i love marijuana but this article isn't total bullshit.

There are naturally existing receptors for nicotine too, that doesn't mean it's good for you.

And just another note- THC doesn't make everyone happy. In many people it causes extreme anxiety, paranoia, depression, etc. Thus, regular use in a person with a borderline illness can indeed be incredibly catastrophic.
Of course, that simply means those people shouldn't smoke pot, not that it should be under prohibition.

Good one Ares. I was looking for a good comparison of his statement, and that's a perfect analogy.

I'm Sorry, I stand corrected. But still, Give me one instance of some one going into psychosis from cannabis?

your body naturally produces Anandamide which is similar in effect to THC

As I pointed out, the escalation of negative effects such as paranoia, anxiety, etc. can have extremely profound effects on people with mental disorders. The clinical literature is chock full of such instances. If you avail yourself of the wonders of Google, I have no doubt you'll find plenty of info.
Regarding anandamide (great name by the way): I think you're looking at the issue backwards. It's not that our brain produces a chemical that's like THC, but the reverse. THC is like a chemical our brain produces- that's why it works. That's why most psychoactive drugs work. That we label receptors based on the drugs that affect them is somewhat misleading. The receptor should be called the anandamide receptor, not the cannabanoid receptor.

Not the weed that makes you psychotic buddy.

PS; Found you finally!

it's a tendancy not a gaurantee. There arethousands and thousands of people who hae chain smoked for twenty years and never gotten cancer. Just not a many as there would be if cigarettes didn't have tar in them.

smoking cigarettes doesn't necessarily give you lung cancer either. It just raises the likelyhood. It might be interesting to compare the percentage increase of lung cancer risk from smoking, say a pack a day of unfiltered to a pack a day of ultra lights for a given time period to the increase in psychosis for skunk vs. ditch weed users over the same period. The statistics should be out there.