LOWERCASEGUY

Correct, but it shouldn't be that way. I spent a lot of time sampling producers via trial and error testing and it took awhile to find the right people. Unfortunately someone coming to Thailand on a 10 day holiday is not in a position to do that. If it's medicinal, it should be of medicinal quality. You don't buy aspirin and have to wonder if there's really aspirin in there.

The effects on me are nowhere near as profound but I do know people where the difference is very noticeable.

Define recreational use. Go ahead, I'll wait. Think you've nailed down a definition? I'm stealing with from Kitty Chopaka but, let's say that I get a recommendations/prescription for cannabis for migraines. I am smoking a joint to help me with my migraine pain and take 2 puffs. Now my migraine pain has eased and I take a 3rd puff as I rolled a nice sativa that helps me focus and be creative and I need to crank out some writing for work. Is that third puff medicinal or recreational? Keep in mind, I was not prescribed cannabis for focus, only for migraine pain. You starting to see how stupid the distinction between medical and recreational is now? I was responding to your statement that said that inhaling anything is damaging to the lungs. Remember this? Given that respiratory therapists administer drugs every day via inhalation, it seems the damage is highly dependent on what is being inhaled, so the blanket statement that inhaling anything is harmful is clearly false unless we also want to argue that even the air is harmful. And we kinda need air. 🙂 Cannabis could easily be produced in inhaler form. If the main concern is lung damage, ban smoking weed. Make edibles and vaping legal and eliminate all forms of smoking. I don't advocate for that but it seems a lot simpler than making cannabis use for "recreational" purposes illegal and throwing people in jail.

You can buy CBD flower and flower can be tested in those same Purpl and Gemmacert testers for CBD content. Agree that most CBD extracts are fake. Then again, about a year ago, most THC extracts you could find in Thailand were fake too. You had to be really selective who you purchased from because there was zero consistency out in the marketplace.

I did. But my point still stands on the article. 🙂

I think part of the problem is that way too many people make promises about cannabis that just aren't realistic. Too many stoner-types who only want to hear good things about weed and if you mention any negatives, they call it drug war propaganda. It's that old pendulum swinging to the extremes. We had 70 or so years of governments lying to us about the harms of cannabis and now we have dudes with ponytails and tiedyed t-shirts saying weed cures cancer. I take CBD fairly regularly. It doesn't have any profounds effects but I do feel a little less stressed out when I take it. Then again, I feel the same if I'm regularly smoking weed. Even when I'm not high, things just feel less stressful.

Full spectrum products are the best. You get the full entourage effect. But yes, only buy quality products regardless of what you buy.

Kind of a crap story. You can tell by the writing style that either the author started with a conclusion or the researcher he's talking to has more to gain from phrama than natural remedies (or both). So, right off the bat, this isn't worded well. It is written in a way that seems as if CBD is used exclusively for pain mangement. That is not the case. Pain is one of several things CBD is used for. And it is known to treat certain types of pain more effectively than others. For instance, many people report reduced neuropathic pain for certain specific conditions. You can't just rub some CBD on a broken bone and feel better. What CBD is more popularly used for is anxiety and depression. This is why CBD is often marketed for helping calm people and reduce stress. It has also shown promise in helping people undergoing chemo to keep food down and increase appetite. Other evidence seems to indicate that it can reduce seizures and other neurological conditions (due to the way it buffers nerve cells from damage). But it's not touted as a cure all for pain. The researchers created a strawman argument. He's either being a tad dramatic or he has a financial interest in CBD not being a good pain alternative. Wait, took a moment to look this guy up and . . . So, he's working on VR pain relief. Let's look at his findings with this in mind. Well known fact that could be handled by regulating that what's on the outside of the bottle has to be on the inside of the bottle. I can assure you that every CBD product sold commercially today contins chemicals other than CBD since nearly all CBD products are suspended in another substance like coconut oil. This is like saying, my research indicates that cars are not made entirely of metal. And buying CBD that doesn't have THC usually means that the CBD is synthetic or that the CBD has been lab produced (isolate) which eliminates the terpenes and other cannabinoids that provide the entourage effect. Bottom line is that the best CBD products are full spectrum, meaning they're extracted from a cannabis plant without leaving out the trace amounts of THC and other cannabinoids. That's why most CBD has warnings on it that it contains less than 0.2% THC. But he does have a point that most of the stuff you see advertised online is junk. That's because it's cheaper to fill a bottle with coconut oil and tell people it's CBD than actually put CBD in the bottle, and there's nobody from the government checking. Too much to dig into but I've skimmed the paper they submitted to the Journal of Pain and I would say this is anything but conclusive. For instance, they claimed they couldn't find any studies that supported the claim that CBD is effective against pain. It took me all of 3 seconds to find this paper. Efficacy, Safety, and Regulation of Cannabidiol on Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review It shows quite the opposite of what the OP study shows and used a very similar methodology except they considered a broader universe of research papers (OP's study only used two sources). They conclude: The OP study's last finding sort of really gets at their agenda. LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury I found the last OP point a little head scratching when I read it because everything I've ever read about CBD has said that while it can increase liver function, that is easily managed by seeking the advice of a physician to do liver function tests. But in the OP findings they list all of this scarey info about over the counter CBD, like the purity, and make it sound like over the counter CBD can cause liver damage. But their conclusion is based on pharmaceutical grade CBD which is many times stronger than over the counter products. This has nothing to do with the effecy of CBD. It's a public policy and public health issue that the government doesn't better regulate these products. Or guys selling VR pain mangement headsets. Again, this has nothing to do with their study. This is all FUD they spew out because, like he said, people are desperate to relieve chronic pain and the more people that try CBD, the less people will spend money on more expensive treatments. In fact, that's probably the biggest hole in their research. The fact that many people seek out CBD while they're being prescribed opioids. People want to get off the hard pharmaceuticals and try something that won't leave them whacked out like opioids do. If chronic pain is as bad as he claims, wouldn't they stick with the opioids? If you take someone and you offer them opioids or CBD and they try both for a month and they come back and say they'll stick with the CBD, wouldn't that indicate that CBD is in some way offering them a better quality of life over opioids? If we are to believe this study, CBD must be the only drug in the world where people voluntarily forego stronger and better pain management medications to take one that is completely ineffective. Somehow I have a hard time accepting the fact that in a world where people doctor shop, get multiple prescriptions, take illegal drugs, etc, that there's a significant number of people who are like, "Oxycotin? Nah, I prefer CBD" if CBD is completely ineffective at pain management. Yet, nearly everywhere that cannabis is legal, there are reports of reduced opioid use as patients opt for CBD. Wow, a doctor that has developed a VR headset thinks the government should shovel more money into his area of study? Amazing. I didn't see that one coming. LOL.

Is hemp cannabis? Why, yes it is. So, what are you babbling about? Cocaine was a medicinal product, not just legal. It was in soda, cough syrup, and obviously used for dental procedures. If this was all done completely based on science, most illegal drugs would be legal and many legal drugs would be illegal.

Please cite your evidence that a causal relationship exists between drugs and what you just described. Nobody is interested in your personal theories. If you have research that shows a causal relationship, fine. If not, it's not welcome in this discussion. Hmmmm . . . well, I've had a pretty successful career and have been smoking weed since I was 14 so . . . jeez we both have anecdotal evidence. But let's look at some other deadbeat drug users who have not produced anything: Michael Phelps Steve Jobs Elon Musk Carl Sagan Bill Gates Abraham Lincoln, US President, quoted as saying, "Two of my favorite things are sitting on my front porch smoking a pipe of sweet hemp, and playing my Hohner harmonica." Barack Obama Ben Franklin Arnold Schwarzenegger Janet Yellen (US Secretary of the Treasury) Are they all slackers? I didn't want to get into musicians, artists, etc that are all avid drug users. You seem to have a stereotype of drug users in your head that isn't very accurate yet you also seem very close minded to changing that opinion with new information. You seem to like to think of yourself in the group of people that need to guide others but maybe you're the stupid one. I'm not saying that you are in fact stupid but most stupid people don't think they're stupid either. You might want to google, "Dunning–Kruger Effect" The arrogance of your statement is truly amazing.

I love the fact that you needed to edit your response for us to have the wisdom of your three laughing emojis. Did you start with two and decide that wasn't enough or did you have four and decided it was too many?

First, define what a drug is. You know the definitions are completely arbitrary, right? Doctors used to use cocaine for medicinal purposes. Now, doctors can't even possess it. Many of the founders of the United States grew cannabis. Now it's illegal. Most drugs that are considered the biggest threats to society all happen to have been enjoyed by minority groups. Weed, heroin, cocaine, etc were all re-classified as "drugs" as a way to control minority groups who used these drugs. Large parts of the world run their drug laws based on the whims of a racist called Harry Anslinger who targeted minority groups in the US via drug laws. And then because the US was losing the drug war they started, they strong-armed many countries, including Thailand, into joining their drug war. Anybody that celebrates drug laws is celebrating racism.

Cannabis has methods of consumption other than smoking. Edibles (cookies, brownies, gummies, etc) Pills (I just got a bunch of micro-dose capsules as a sample from a grower) IV Patches (transdermal) I'm pretty sure PrikPot in Chiang Mai sells snus-like satchels with cannabis (decarb it in tea or coffee for a nice high) Vaping (you claim sucking anything except air into your lungs is bad for you but many drugs are available as inhalers - ie asthma meds) If there's a way for doctors to administer a medication, there's a good shot you can deliver cannabinoids via the same method.

It feels so strange being super pro-cannabis but also needing to correct people for making wildly inaccurate claims about weed. Anybody that says cannabis isn't addictive isn't worth taking seriously in any conversation about cannabis. The fact that your link is the first result of millions all saying that cannabis can be addictive for some people means that OP didn't even do the cursory google search before making a medical claim. What other topics can you possibly discuss with someone that is willfully ignorant?

I'm talking about everyone, not just those on an inner journey. Yes, the guy who goes off into the woods and meditates for a year is trying to alter their state of consciousness but his quest is born out of the same dissatisfaction that makes people drink booze, watch porn, exercise, or get high. You're trying to turn what I said into something else. I'm not saying that getting high or taking shrooms is better than spending a few years meditating on the nature of reality. I'm saying that both the meditator and the alcoholic are trying to alter their brain but they have different reasons But this desire to change our brain chemistry, thus our consciousness, is as old as humanity. You can go back into human history as far back as there are artifacts and you'll always find beer, wine, shrooms, weed, or some other substance. In fact, while I'm not a subscriber to this theory myself, there is a theory that one of the reasons the human brain underwent such rapid expansion in such a short evolutionary timeline is because apes were eating shrooms and the shrooms caused mutations that accelerated our brain evolution. There are a lot of holes in that theory but the fact that it's even made it this far as a theory means that people wanting to do drugs or alter their brain chemistry isn't some sort of new phenomenon. And who gets to decide what's best for me? You do realize that what you're proposing is a nanny state that has to tell each individual what they can and can't do based on . . . whatever some idiot in the government decides? Maybe, just maybe, instead of making rules about what people can and can't do, we embrace the fact that something deep down inside every human being craves to alter its consciousness. Keep in mind, that almost all drugs are manageable. You can be a functioning meth addict. You can be a functioning opioid addict. The problem is when the government says they're going to protect you from . . . you . . . and they create an environment that prioritizes penalties over concern over people's welfare. The fatality rate for opioids didn't skyrocket in the US until the US gov cracked down on legal opioids. That forced people who had been tricked into getting hooked on opioids by the doctors and pharma companies to buy heroin (often laced with fentanyl) from street dealers. But what if they had just left everyone alone? What if you could buy pharmaceutical opioids at any pharmacy? And instead of spending billions of dollars a year incarcerating heroin users, you can use that money to offer people help if they want to kick heroin. Your solution sucks. It's basically you forcing your ideals on me and everyone else. Much like Bill Murry said, I'm paraphrasing, I find it off that the most dangerous aspect of cannabis is getting caught with it. There shouldn't be any drugs that are illegal to possess. The real issue is whether or not someone can responsibly use them. And the moment you make the penalty for responsible use greater than the harm caused by the drug, you are a bigger problem than the drug. Way more lives have been ruined by the war on drug than if they would have just given free drugs to every man, woman, and child.

Again, how do you know it was a tirade if you didn't read it? When I was a young child, my mother used to take me to my aunt’s house and the boredom was excruciating. But then I would hear my mom in the other room say, “Well, we should get going” but she kept talking for another 20 minutes. That’s what listening to you feels like.

What percentage am I talking about? Show me a country, no matter how barbaric their drug laws, that doesn't have a drug problem. If the threat of death can't stop people from doing drugs, maybe the problem isn't the drugs.

How would you know that it's utter mindless and unfounded rubbish if you didn't read it? You can't have it both ways. Either you read it and you thought you would be witty by saying you didn't, or you realized very early that I was going to be refuting some of the stuff you made up so you quit reading it and tried to dismiss it because you can't defend what you said.

Hate to break the news to you but humans have been doing drugs for almost as long as humans have existed. There's evidence of cannabis and mushroom use going back thousands of years, perhaps even 10,000 or more years. The desire to change our state of consciousness is universal and not even limited to humans. Elephants and monkeys are famous for eating fermenting fruit to get drunk. Beer and wine were two of the first things humans learned to make. I'll refrain from a philosophical deep dive into human consciousness but I do find it telling that you think your state of consciousness is the correct one. I think any Buddhist or anyone that follows a non-duality sort of philosophy assumes that the world we live in is the dream and that drilling down into the layers of reality is the only way to see what the universe really is. Another aspect of this topic you seem to ignore is the fact that you define drugs as the illegal sort. What Xanax or SSRIs or the countless other LEGAL drugs that it's perfectly acceptable to consume? Why is meth illegal but drugs that produce almost the exact same physical reaction but are sold by pharmaceutical companies legal? Society needs to get away from the idea that altering one's state of consciousness is somehow a bad thing. Once we realize that people will medicate themselves one way or the other, then we can work on managing the issues rather than prosecuting people.

If they put a limit on the number you could grow, it does sound like they see some issues.

Based on some things you've posted, your disdain for reading is evident.

You're forgetting that cannabis also means CBD.

This is an urban myth. People have a tendency to confuse "less addictive" with "not addictive" because it suits their purposes. Here is a paper from the University of Notre Dame. I think it's pretty hard to argue that one doesn't build a tolerance to weed over time which is one of the three criteria. And ask any stoner that's ever taking a tolerance break if they have withdrawal symptoms, that's two criteria met. While you can easily find a third critera in withdrawal from personal/social relationships or having a strong desire to reduce or cut back on usage, continuation of use despite the presence of adverse effects is going to pretty much be on a lot of heavy stoner's lists. So, if that's the medical definition of addiction, we just proved that cannabis can be addictive. I’m not anti-weed, I’m a daily smoker, however, I am anti-BS, bro-science about weed. Throwing out easily disprovable information doesn’t help the cause, bro. Too many people that couldn’t locate the liver in an anatomy book doling out medical facts like they’re doctors. Ahh, the old, Thais are poor theory. You know Thais can grow weed, right? They don’t have to buy it if they can grow it or steal it from someone who grows. And nowadays, a lot of Thais make way more than some expats that live here so the poverty angle isn’t as compelling as it might have been 20 or 30 years ago when most Thais were truly in or close to poverty. You should really read the Thai-language news because there is almost a daily story about this or that shop getting busted for selling kratom juice and cannabis to minors. Apparently, Thai youth like to mix THC and cough syrup too and they’ve made several big busts for that too. Nothing you’ve said negates the fact that most medical research indicates that the human brain doesn’t not finish development until around 25 and that cannabis use prior to that can have negative effects on development and cognition. That’s pretty universal in every market that has legalized weed and even some of the loudest proponents for cannabis say that it’s not appropriate for young people. Whether it’s addictive or not is not relevant in that context. Again, I’m not anti-cannabis, I’m highly supportive of it and involved in the business. But there are plenty of valid reasons to restrict the availability of cannabis to people under 20. The problem the Thai government has is that given the current status of cannabis, it’s very difficult for the police to do anything. Weed isn’t illegal. Possessing it if you’re under 20 is illegal. But since it’s not a narcotic, the penalties for both possession and selling it to a minor are wrist slaps which isn’t an effective deterrent. You also need to keep in mind that Thais see the issue very differently than the typical foreigner that goes on social to ask why it’s being made illegal again. Thais are overwhelmingly against recreational use. I mean, almost 90% kind of overwhelming (google some of the NIDA and other polls). The government is giving the people exactly what they’re asking for. Thais LOVE medicinal use though. I remember when one of the first cannabis clinics opened (a real clinic in a hospital, not a dispensary), I saw Thai people from every age group and economic class waiting for cannabis therapy. People would roll up in a brand new Mercedes and the next guy would be on a Honda Wave that was older than the driver. I saw little old Thai ladies and young people lined up for cannabis therapy. Even my (Thai) wife is crazy about CBD gummies and takes one with her multi-vitamin every morning. The real reason they’re trying to roll back legalization is that it happened too fast and too big for most Thais. You went from this plant being an automatic jail sentence to a dispensary every 100 meters on every street. Too many shops that went with the stoner graffiti look and catering to the dregs of society. Mind you, I’m not suggesting all cannabis users are dregs of society, stoners, or any other term that could be construed negatively. But I can tell you there are shops that cater to different segments of the cannabis market and many of them went straight to the lowest common denominator. Ironically, the lowest common denominator customers are the drug addicts you claim don’t exist.

I can't speak for PrikPot but online ordering has been illegal for over a year. Many shops keep taking online orders but I have noticed more and more have shuttered their online sales or moved everything over to a less visible platforms like LINE or Telegram.

The cheapest thing. you're going to find that is in any way even remotely accurate is a Purple Pro which retails for around 100,000 baht in Thailand (closer to $2K in the US and other markets). They don't sell these machines on Lazada so you'll need to contact a rep on Facebook or LINE and inquire about purchasing. The other popular testing rig is the GemmaCert which, IIRC, runs around 200,000 or 250,000 baht.