Those offering sensational warnings about the alleged dangers of so-called ‘high potency marijuana’ — and demanding that these products be removed from the legal marketplace — are taking their cues from an age-old playbook.
From the onset of cannabis prohibition, criminalization advocates have sought to rationalize their position by greatly exaggerating the supposed strength of marijuana. In the 1930s, while lobbying for the passage of the first-ever federal ban on cannabis, Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Henry Anslinger testified to Congress that the marijuana of a century ago was so uniquely powerful that it was “entirely the monster Hyde, the harmful effect of which cannot be measured.”
By the 1960s and ’70s, public officials claimed that so-called ‘Woodstock weed’ had grown so potent that smoking it would permanently damage brain cells and, therefore, its simple possession needed to be heavily criminalized in order to protect public health.
In the 1980s, former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates opined that advanced growing techniques had increased the potency of THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in the plant, to the point that “those who blast some pot on a casual basis … should be taken out and shot.” A few years later, during congressional hearings on the topic of strengthening federal anti-drug laws, then-senator Joe Biden publicly weighed in on the issue, opining, “It’s like comparing buckshot in a shotgun shell to a laser-guided missile.”
Looking back, it is apparent that each of these previous generations’ claims were nothing more than hyperbole. Nonetheless, these sensational ideas had a lasting influence on marijuana policy — in many cases, leading directly to the passage of detrimental public policies that caused the undue stigmatization and criminalization of millions of citizens. The latest recycling of the “It’s not your parents’ pot” claim is no different.
Let’s face facts. The availability of potent cannabis products is not a phenomenon unique to today’s state-legal market. In fact, higher potency products, like hashish, have always been available (and were quite common in the decades prior to legalization). Typically, when consumers encounter higher potency products, they ingest lesser quantities of them. This self-regulatory process is known as self-titration.
Moreover, higher potency THC products do not dominate state-legal markets. In fact, most consumers tend to prefer and gravitate toward flower products of more moderate potencies, not concentrates.
This phenomenon should hardly come as a surprise. After all, the overwhelming majority of alcohol sales in this country consist of relatively low potency beer, while less than 10 percent of sales are from the purchase of distilled spirits. However, unlike hard liquor — which can readily cause death by overdose when overindulged yet is nonetheless sold in ‘lethal dose quantities’ in every liquor store in America — THC has never caused a lethal overdose, regardless of either its potency or the quantity consumed.
That’s not to say that cannabis products cannot also be overconsumed. They can. But in such instances, consumers typically experience only temporary dysphoria (commonly referred to as a panic attack) — the effects of which dissipate within a few hours. Nonetheless, in order to discourage overconsumption, most states regulate certain cannabis products, like edibles, to single serving sizes. All states further demand product testing and labeling, so that consumers are aware of the specific percentage of THC available in the product and can make their decisions accordingly.
In some instances, exposure to highly potent products may trigger psychotic-like symptoms. In reality, however, such incidents are exceedingly rare and are typically exclusive to those who are either predisposed to or have a pre-existing psychiatric disorder. For example, Canadian researchers recently assessed marijuana-related hospitalizations among a cohort of more than 23,000 patients authorized to access cannabis products. Specifically, investigators tracked incidences whereby subjects were hospitalized because of “mental or behavioral disorders due to the use of cannabis.” During the course of the trial, investigators reported that only 26 subjects were admitted for exhibiting such symptoms.
Even more recently, an international team of scientists assessed incidences of cannabis-associated psychotic symptoms in a cohort of 230,000 consumers. They determined that fewer than one-half of one percent of them ever had experienced symptoms requiring medical intervention — a rate that was similar to that associated with alcohol — and that most of those who did so had been previously diagnosed with either bipolar disorder or psychosis.
Ultimately, proposed bans on cannabis products will only perpetuate the unregulated market. That is because outlawing these products will drive the production and sale of them exclusively underground. This result undermines the primary goal of legalization, which is to disrupt and ultimately replace the underground market with a transparent, regulated marketplace, wherein products are tested for safety and are clearly labeled so that consumers can make educated choices.
Rather than reintroduce cannabis criminalization, regulators and other concerned parties should seek to provide the public with more comprehensive safety information about the effects of more potent products, and they should continue to ensure that legal products do not get diverted to the youth market. Such actions will ultimately be far more productive than calling for a return to the failures of marijuana prohibition.
Paul Armentano is the deputy director of NORML — the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.