Government pot is less potent than commercial pot questioning dozens of scientific

first_img Email Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwecenter_img With legislation poised to make marijuana more widely accessible, Kane and colleagues requested data from a private cannabis testing laboratory that dispensaries in Colorado, Washington, and California had hired to verify levels of psychoactive components including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their retail pot. Steep Hill Labs, based in Berkeley, California, used high-performance liquid chromatography on 2980 marijuana samples to sort out individual molecules and compile a menu of its chemical compounds.The primary compounds in marijuana are cannabinoids, which alter how neurotransmitters are released in the brain. THC is the best known, but others—only some of which have psychoactive effects—include cannabidiol, cannabigerol, cannabichromene, and tetrahydrocannabivarin. Though THC is often the primary focus of many federally funded studies, there’s increasing consensus within the field of cannabis research that many medicinal benefits of marijuana derive from various cannabinoids working in tandem, known as the “entourage effect,” Kane says.The research team compared lab results from the privately grown cannabis samples with NIDA-provided information about the chemical composition of government-grown marijuana. Because Steep Hill tests for more compounds than NIDA, the researchers compared only those analyzed in both. Cannabinoid levels showed a great range in privately grown marijuana, which had diverse mixes of the various cannabinoids and other compounds called terpenes. The federally grown strain, in contrast, had a “limited diversity,” the researchers reported last week on the preprint server bioRxiv. Importantly, THC levels on average were between 10% and 15% lower in NIDA-sanctioned pot than in the least potent samples in legal dispensaries. “In NIDA’s marijuana, you pretty much only get THC,” Kane says. “That doesn’t seem like a good analog for what’s going on in the private market.”Daniela Vergara, a postdoctoral scholar in Kane’s lab at CU who led the study, notes that the euphoric effects, as well as some of the suspected therapeutic benefits, of cannabis ramp up with its dosage. The researchers conclude that less potent and less chemically diverse pot prevents researchers from discovering the effects—both good and bad—of the cannabinoids prevalent in privately grown strains. “The bottom line is that if you can’t have people consuming the cannabis they usually consume, then your research is not going to be valid,” Vergara says.NIDA declined to comment on the paper, but in a prepared statement, the agency noted that it has diversified its cannabis offerings to researchers since 2014. The statement also noted that NIDA supports a recent DEA decision to increase the number of farms eligible to grow marijuana for research “to potentially increase the variety and strains available to scientists.”Kane says this is a good start, but it doesn’t compare to the vast array of cannabinoid compositions found on the private market. Kane and Vergara would ideally like to see federal guidelines revised to allow researchers to test any legally sold cannabis strains.Ethan Russo, a neurologist and psychopharmacology researcher at Phytecs in Los Angeles, California—a biotech firm that studies naturally made endocannabinoids—agrees. If U.S. researchers had access to privately grown cannabis, the state of the science would rapidly improve, Russo says. “Because of the constraints on this research, we’ve taken a backseat to the rest of the world. We should be leading.” Earlier this week, four U.S. states voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana, whereas four states made it legal as just a medicine. But as national tolerance grows for the drug, a new study suggests the marijuana in circulation bears little resemblance to what the government requires federally funded academics to use, a handful of special strains approved by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The finding calls into the question the validity of dozens of studies based on the government-grown marijuana.The U.S. federal government instituted strict taxes on marijuana sales and use in 1937 that, in effect, made it illegal. But it wasn’t until 1970 that the feds slapped the drug with a Schedule I designation, the country’s strictest level of controlled substances. Around the same time, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) predecessor, began regulating marijuana cultivation for research. Ever since, the University of Mississippi has held an exclusive contract to grow marijuana destined for laboratory experiments, from studying its effects on driving ability to investigating whether it can help treat glaucoma.But do the findings from that work accurately reflect the experiences of people who regularly use marijuana? Probably not, says Nolan Kane, a plant geneticist at the University of Colorado (CU) in Boulder, who compared the chemical profiles of privately grown and government-grown marijuana in a study released last month. Researchers have suspected for years that NIDA’s marijuana has little in common with what’s available from private growers in terms of potency and chemical variety. But there have never been enough data to back that up. “Everybody knows this is the case,” he says, “but this is the first truly extensive study looking into it.”last_img read more


Recent Posts

Recent Comments