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...
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
This seems to be similar reactions to those who take doses of LSD and other psychedelic drugs.
This also seems to be the case for alcohol use.
It stands to reason drug response follows a bell shaped curve, where most people fit in to the pleasant-effects most-of-the-time large area covered by the curve, and fewer people fall outside.