A handful of psychiatrists in Minnestota, where cannabis has not yet been legalized for recreational use (but is currently being considered), is calling for the age limit to be 25 when it is legalized. They cite anecdotal evidence of young patients with psychosis that they claim is caused by today's high-potency weed. And here is why they are, in a word, wrong:
- First of all, these psychoses that they cite are occurring despite recreational cannabis remaining illegal in Minnesota for all ages. Legalizing it with an utterly unrealistic age limit of 25 will only preserve and entrench the current black market while worsening criminal justice inequities, both age and racial disparities.
- The brain continues developing well into the 30s and 40s, and the risk period for schizophrenia continues until about 30, so 25 is arbitrary.
- While excessive cannabis use can be harmful at any age, and starting use before age 18 and especially before 15 is likely more harmful than starting at 18 or older, there is really no clear and convincing evidence that using it at 18-20 is any worse than using at 21-24 or 25+, especially for light or moderate use. To claim otherwise is unscientific, disingenuous, and really pushes the limits of the precautionary principle.
- As we have noted many times before, the relationship between cannabis and psychosis is quite complex, and far more nuanced than Reefer Madness. Though there is likely a tiny, exquisitely vulnerable sliver of the population that should really avoid weed like the plague at any age, that is no reason for blanket bans or restrictions (by age or otherwise) for legal adults. That would be unscientific and unjust.
- And finally, if today's high-potency weed is in fact the culprit in an alleged (and far from certain) recent increase in psychosis among young people, the solution is NOT to raise the age limit and force it deeper underground, but to put a cap (say, 10% or 15%) on the potency of THC on legal weed (and perhaps also setting a minimum level of CBD, which counteracts many of the adverse effects of too much THC), and/or taxing it based on THC/CBD levels. And also warn people who are at increased risk of psychosis as well via honest public education messaging without sensational fearmongering.
There it is. Problem solved. No good reason to set the age limit any higher than 18, let alone 25. Let's nip this ageist idea in the bud, pun intended of course.
UPDATE: Twenty-One Debunked believes that proper labeling and tax incentives alone will likely be enough to encourage lower THC and higher CBD levels even in the absence of hard THC/CBD limits. Taxing cannabis at a higher rate base on THC levels (whether proportionally, or perhaps disproportionally when exceeding a specific threshold or for specific product categories) and applying an offsetting tax discount based on CBD levels would do the trick, as the market would adjust accordingly.
Also, getting back to the subject of psychosis in young people, don't forget to take your fish oil. Yes, you read that right. Apparently a new study found that there is an inverse correlation between omega-3 fatty acid levels during adolescence and psychosis in young adulthood. This dovetails nicely with a study from 2010 that found that just 12 weeks of giving fish oil supplements to teens at ultra-high risk of psychosis greatly reduced their risk of developing psychosis a year later compared with those given placebo.
Tolitharianism, namely medical fascism, is what really creates laws and rules in this country. Medical experts which say that minimum ages should be 25 should be ignored. Laws and rules should be made with the acknowledgment of civil rights and civil liberties, not medical fascism. The minimum age for smoking Cannabis should be 18. Junk science is what those medical experts are citing and thus should be discredited.
ReplyDeleteVoting for the Libertarian Party might be the only way to preserve and expand the rights of young adults, which is if it's the case, then I would probably vote for the Libertarian Party. Democrats are filled with ageist people and Republicans are apathetic about the rights of young adults so the Libertarian Party might be the only way.
DeleteEven if there were certain harms, people are adults well before 25 and it should be an individual choice. Science can inform, but society has the final say.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, when legalization was well underway the medical community debated the legal age with some saying 21, many opted for 25, or age 25 with only low THC products for those between 21 and 25 and very few opted for 18. Most provinces settled between 18 or 19 because: 1). Setting the age too high sends young adults to the black market where products are unregulated and are they are shut out of the existing legal market where products are tested and they can seek knowledgeable staff on what products are best for them if they choose to use cannabis.
2.) While not ignoring that cannabis is still a drug with the potential for harm if misused or abused, compared to alcohol or tobacco it is debatably a safer drug. In most provinces you can drink alcohol and buy tobacco at 19, (except Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba where it’s 18). In the US, it’s the infamous 21. It makes no sense to set it higher than the legal age of alcohol a more harmful drug. So most provinces set it at 19, with Alberta being 18, and Quebec being the outlier at 21 years of age, and the states that have legalized it’s also 21. But Canada’s reasoning is simple: If you can legally drink, you can toke.
3.) When are people considered adults? When can people make choices (even risky or harmful) ones for themselves without government or parental interference? In most provinces the age of majority is 18, with a few setting it at 19. In the US, most states set the age of majority at 18. I believe that if you’re old enough to vote, to marry, to be sentenced to adult prison, drive a car, sign contracts, and have most of the most of the responsibilities and rights that comes with legal adulthood, choosing what you put in your body is no different. You can also make your own medical decisions generally upon age 18. You can choose to consent to a major surgical operation, but can’t choose your own vice?
4.) People will find a way to get what they want no matter the legal age. That’s not to say there should be no age limit or regulation, but why waste extra resources to police a large age group, (especially ones that are not legal minors)?
Amen to that. I couldn't agree more.
DeleteRather than dictating the choice of adults, provide access to educational resources about using cannabis during the years of 18-25. It’s ok to advise and say “you should limit your usage preferably, heck maybe even abstain, but the choice is yours and is here what you need to know” and educate them about high and low THC products and how lower potency products should be the way to go if you choose to use, but the answer isn’t prohibition.
ReplyDeleteI commend Canada for using this method. https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/drugs-health-products/is-cannabis-safe-use-facts-young-adults/is-cannabis-safe-use-facts-young-adults.pdf
I agree. It would be nice if their factsheet did not cherry-pick the studies they cited, some of which have later been debunked, but otherwise it is good.
DeleteSpeaking of which, I see Canada came out with a set of lower risk cannabis usage guidelines:
Deletehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28644037/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete