[the-pigeon]

Which is one of the big problems with cannabis studies.

THC is known as the "active" ingredient in cannabis. However we know it's definitely not the only one.

There are 113 identified cannabinoids. Most are believed to have some effect. And there's terpenes that are believed to have effects as well.

So the problem is that ever single bit of cannabis has different ratios of these chemicals. Even two plants with the exact same genetics grown in same conditions can have widely ranging ratios. Which potentially means widely ranging effects.

The good thing is with legalization moving along we should see a lot more high quality studies that can help us figure this out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid

https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/terpenes-the-flavor...

http://www.ncsm.nl/english/what-is-medicinal-cannabis/active...

[weberc2]

> The good thing is with legalization moving along we should see a lot more high quality studies that can help us figure this out.

This is tangential, but it seems odd to me that many of the same people who are opposed to GMOs on the grounds that “science may have missed something” are okay with legalizing pot until science clearly demonstrates harm. Note that I’m not directing that at you (I don’t think you said anything like what I’m describing), but your quip made me think of it. I’m only calling this out as an intriguing observation; not trying to pick on anyone.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

I don't believe that's a fair comparison.

Firstly, marijuana taken internally has a long tradition of use. GMO's not so much. Admittedly, modern strains of marijuana may pose greater concerns.

Secondly, legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, only tangentially related to the harm they may cause by using them. Take alcohol as an example. The legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, more about a) personal-sovereignty, and b) the harm caused by the war on drugs.

For the record, I'm pro GMO when and where they makes sense, and also pro personal-sovereignty.

[weberc2]

GMOs have been consumed as a primary food source daily by hundreds of millions of people per year with no known health risks, even after extensive study. Cannabis has been used for a while, but it hasn’t received the same level of study and concerns have been raised (e.g., this article). I’ve got to give this one to the GMOs.

> Secondly, legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, only tangentially related to the harm they may cause by using them. Take alcohol as an example. The legalisation of recreational drugs is, I'd argue, more about a) personal-sovereignty, and b) the harm caused by the war on drugs.

How does “personal sovereignty” explain supporting prohibitions against GMOs? The opposition to the war on drugs but seems plausible.

[rorykoehler]

GMOs are the genetic equivalent to plastic in the ocean. Once it's in the wild it's damn hard to reverse the damage. Weed on the other hand you can just not consume.

[weberc2]

GMOs are already produced on a massive scale; any irreversible damage is already done. Further, this is true for any domesticated organism, not GMOs in particular. Besides, the argument I referenced was about health risks, not ecological damage.

[rorykoehler]

I don't care about health risks. Maybe that's why pro GMO and anti GMO folks can't have a discussion?

[weberc2]

> I don't care about health risks.

Then my observation doesn't apply to you.

> Maybe that's why pro GMO and anti GMO folks can't have a discussion?

Lots of anti GMO folks have cited health concerns.

[eloff]

I've also noticed that. People are illogical.