Why more youth are landing in the ER with vomiting from cannabis use
-
You lost, the only honest response from here is for you to admit it and move on like an adult
This feels like playing chess with a pigeon, TBH.
Ok, buddy. “You win.”
-
This feels like playing chess with a pigeon, TBH.
Ok, buddy. “You win.”
If you had any self-awareness or decency you’d be ashamed of yourself
-
I’ve already corrected your misinterpretation of the studies on several occasions, so there’s no need to continue to belabour the point. If you want to argue about it to the authors of those studies, I’m sure they’d love to hear from you.
This is not a “war on drugs”, but a public health concern. You’re free to harm yourself however you like. But the public, especially our youth, should be better informed of the risks, especially while the chatter about cannabis being “safe” is still being thrown about casually.
You’ve corrected nothing, why bother lying about something so easily verifiable? Anyone who reads these comments will have already reached the entirely accurate conclusion that you’re either a sincere moron or a highly motivated liar. You’ve lost beyond any hope of recovery, you have no credibility, it would be reasonable for you to give up now.
-
What experts? Because it took me all of five minutes to find a shitload of resources detailing long-term permanent effects of heroin abuse including brain damage, feel free to try finding even one credible source that says otherwise
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/heroin/what-are-long-term-effects-heroin-use
Patterns and Predictors of Heroin Use, Remission, and Psychiatric Health Among People with Heroin Dependence: Key Findings from the 18–20-Year Follow-Up of the Australian Treatment Outcome Study (ATOS)
This study aimed to investigate the long-term patterns and predictors of heroin use, dependence, and psychiatric health over 18–20 years among a cohort of Australians with heroin dependence, using a prospective longitudinal cohort study conducted in ...
PubMed Central (PMC) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Developing a Scale of Domains of Negative Consequences of Chronic Heroin Use
Chronic use of heroin typically leads to numerous negative life consequences and serious clinical impairment. Increased negative consequences can result in poor treatment outcomes as well as adverse health effects and impaired social functioning. ...
PubMed Central (PMC) (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
We’re not discussing responsible alcohol usage, per your previous comment we’re talking about abuse. Abuse of alcohol can easily kill a person in a single drinking session, not true at all for any form of cannabis no matter how concentrated. Alcohol abuse can destroy your organs in just a few years requiring transplant to avoid an agonizing death, also not true for any form of cannabis no matter how concentrated even after a lifetime of heavy use. And yes, alcohol actually is still harmful even in small amounts, it’s a fucking carcinogen, it directly results in cumulative cell damage leading inevitably to cancer, there is literally no safe amount. If you drink and don’t get cancer it’s only because you managed to get killed by something else first.
What are the long-term effects of heroin use? | National Institute on Drug Abuse
Repeated heroin use changes the physical structure13 and physiology of the brain, creating long-term imbalances in neuronal and hormonal systems that are not easily reversed.14,15 Studies have shown some deterioration of the brain’s white matter due to heroin use, which may affect decision-making abilities, the ability to regulate behavior, and responses to stressful situations.16-18 Heroin also produces profound degrees of tolerance and physical dependence.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (nida.nih.gov)
Alcohol and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet
A fact sheet that summarizes the evidence linking alcohol consumption to the risk of various cancers. Includes information about factors that affect the risk of alcohol-associated cancers.
(www.cancer.gov)
And cannabis? Minor risk of cancer due to smoke inhalation in traditional ingestion, none for any other method of consumption
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1277837/ “It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4302404/ “…a null association between marijuana use and lung cancer is somewhat surprising since marijuana smoke contains known carcinogens in amounts comparable to those found in tobacco smoke (49). While the generally smaller amounts of marijuana that are regularly smoked compared to tobacco might appear to explain the null association of marijuana with lung cancer, the absence of a dose-response relationship between marijuana use and lung cancer, in contrast to the strong dose-response relationship noted for tobacco (16), would argue against this explanation. A more likely explanation is a tumor-suppressant effect of THC and other cannabinoids evident in both cell culture systems and animal models of a variety of cancers, as reviewed by Bifulco et al. (57). These anti-tumoral effects (anti-mitogenic, pro-apoptotic and anti-angiogenetic) could possibly counteract the tumor-initiating or tumor-promoting effects of the carcinogens within the smoke of cannabis.”
So even in the most harmful method of cannabis consumption there are verifiable anti-carcinogenic effects mitigating the carcinogenic effects of the smoke! And again, literally any other method of cannabis ingestion completely bypasses all carcinogenic effects and respiratory damage, leaving zero long-term health effects.
Your allegedly high neighbor who allegedly smashed your gate does nothing to change the verifiable fact that cannabis is infinitely safer than any other recreational substance in existence, correcting you on your nonsense isn’t “whataboutism” you’re just upset at being corrected.
A lot of assumption/projection there dude. I am by no means upset.
-
As cannabis use among youth rises in Canada — and THC potency reaches record highs — emergency departments are seeing a surge in cases of a once-rare condition: cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS).
Characterized by relentless vomiting, abdominal pain and temporary relief through compulsive hot showers or baths, CHS is increasingly affecting adolescents and young adults. Yet few people — including many clinicians — know it exists.
Canada ranks among the highest globally for youth cannabis use, with 43 per cent of 16-19-year-olds reporting use in the past year. Usage peaks among those 20–24 years, with nearly half (48 per cent) reporting past-year use.
This rise in regular, heavy use coincides with a 400 per cent increase in THC potency since the 1980s. Strains with THC levels above 25 per cent are now common. As cannabis becomes more potent and accessible, clinicians are seeing more cases of CHS, a condition virtually unheard of before 2004.
CHS unfolds in three phases:
-
Prodromal phase: Nausea and early morning discomfort begin. Users increase cannabis consumption, thinking it will relieve symptoms.
-
Hyperemetic phase: Intense vomiting, dehydration and abdominal pain follow. Hot showers or baths provide temporary relief — a hallmark of CHS.
-
Recovery phase: Symptoms resolve after stopping cannabis entirely.
Diagnosis is often delayed. One reason is because CHS mimics conditions like gastroenteritis or eating disorders, leading to costly CT scans, MRIs and gastric emptying tests. One telltale sign — compulsive hot bathing — is frequently overlooked, despite its strong diagnostic value.
Youth face unique risks. The brain continues to develop until about age 25, and THC exposure during this critical window can impair cognitive functions like memory, learning and emotional regulation. Heavy cannabis use is associated with heightened risks of anxiety, depression, psychosis and self-harm.
Edit, the link in the article goes to this study:
Results There were 12 866 ED visits for CHS from 8140 individuals during the study. Overall, the mean (SD) age was 27.4 (10.5) years, with 2834 individuals (34.8%) aged 19 to 24 years, 4163 (51.5%) females, and 1353 individuals (16.6%) with a mental health ED visit or hospitalization in the 2 years before their first CHS ED visit. Nearly 10% of visits (1135 visits [8.8%]) led to hospital admissions. Monthly rates of CHS ED visits increased 13-fold during the 7.5-year study period, from 0.26 visits per 100 000 population in January 2014 to 3.43 visits per 100 000 population in June 2021. Legalization was not associated with an immediate or gradual change in rates of ED visits for CHS; however, commercialization during the COVID-19 pandemic period was associated with an immediate increase in rates of CHS ED visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.31-1.70). During commercialization, rates of CHS ED visits increased more in women (IRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.16-1.92) and individuals older than the legal age of cannabis purchase (eg, age 19-24 years: IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.19-2.16) than men (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.37) and individuals younger than the legal age of purchase (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.42-1.45).
Why more youth are landing in the ER with vomiting from cannabis use
Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome — with severe vomiting, abdominal pain and temporary relief through compulsive hot bathing — is increasingly affecting adolescents and young adults.
The Conversation (theconversation.com)
Why is everyone so combative as if this has not been well known for decades?
Cannabis is a drug just like every other. It’s not safe unregulated. This is evidence that we should regulate and provide safe guidelines on usage.
But I know so many people that spread that you can’t eat or smoke to much cannabis. That level of ignorance is no better.
-
-
Why is everyone so combative as if this has not been well known for decades?
Cannabis is a drug just like every other. It’s not safe unregulated. This is evidence that we should regulate and provide safe guidelines on usage.
But I know so many people that spread that you can’t eat or smoke to much cannabis. That level of ignorance is no better.
I wouldn’t say “combative”. Critical, maybe.
It is a syndrome they’re describing, with rather vague symptoms and a very large userbase.
I’m not one to deny the risks of anything, but since cannabis has been subjected to biased research and journalism for 100 years, it’s not really surprising some people are somewhat critical of something this vague.
Like what’s your suggestion on “regulation”? Because I think an appropriate age limit is fine, just like with alcohol. Actual proper legalisation would allow people to actually know how much theyre consuming. Now it’s just random strength weed for random amount of inhale. If you knew x mg per puff or edible, like you can do in some places, but not most of the world, then it becomes easier knowing how much you’re actually consuming. So yeah, better regulation. Which requires legalisation.
-
A lot of assumption/projection there dude. I am by no means upset.
A lot of verifiable scientific evidence that I’m right, the fact that you’ve completely ignored all of it and failed entirely to admit that you were wrong indicates pretty strongly that I’m also right about your emotional state as well
-
I wouldn’t say “combative”. Critical, maybe.
It is a syndrome they’re describing, with rather vague symptoms and a very large userbase.
I’m not one to deny the risks of anything, but since cannabis has been subjected to biased research and journalism for 100 years, it’s not really surprising some people are somewhat critical of something this vague.
Like what’s your suggestion on “regulation”? Because I think an appropriate age limit is fine, just like with alcohol. Actual proper legalisation would allow people to actually know how much theyre consuming. Now it’s just random strength weed for random amount of inhale. If you knew x mg per puff or edible, like you can do in some places, but not most of the world, then it becomes easier knowing how much you’re actually consuming. So yeah, better regulation. Which requires legalisation.
Agreed. Proper legislation. I hope the political conversation becomes more about how rather than this bad/good argument.
-
A lot of verifiable scientific evidence that I’m right, the fact that you’ve completely ignored all of it and failed entirely to admit that you were wrong indicates pretty strongly that I’m also right about your emotional state as well
So you thought you’d double down. Interesting. You provided so much reading material, yet it was more important at the time to address the personal attack strawman you were building. This is not a debate tactic, it is a hostile troll tactic. If you can’t debate like an intelligent person so you resort to insults and allegations then it is not worth my time. Life it too short to deal with negative trolls.
-
So you thought you’d double down. Interesting. You provided so much reading material, yet it was more important at the time to address the personal attack strawman you were building. This is not a debate tactic, it is a hostile troll tactic. If you can’t debate like an intelligent person so you resort to insults and allegations then it is not worth my time. Life it too short to deal with negative trolls.
Doubling down is only a bad thing when it results in a loss, I’m right dumbass. The debate is over, your failure to acknowledge that and insistence on continuing to defend verifiably incorrect information warrants hostility, you were never debating in good faith in the first place.
-
Doubling down is only a bad thing when it results in a loss, I’m right dumbass. The debate is over, your failure to acknowledge that and insistence on continuing to defend verifiably incorrect information warrants hostility, you were never debating in good faith in the first place.
-
Bye troll
Later loser
-
I wouldn’t say “combative”. Critical, maybe.
It is a syndrome they’re describing, with rather vague symptoms and a very large userbase.
I’m not one to deny the risks of anything, but since cannabis has been subjected to biased research and journalism for 100 years, it’s not really surprising some people are somewhat critical of something this vague.
Like what’s your suggestion on “regulation”? Because I think an appropriate age limit is fine, just like with alcohol. Actual proper legalisation would allow people to actually know how much theyre consuming. Now it’s just random strength weed for random amount of inhale. If you knew x mg per puff or edible, like you can do in some places, but not most of the world, then it becomes easier knowing how much you’re actually consuming. So yeah, better regulation. Which requires legalisation.
Well, since the study is Canadian, the labelling argument is a non-issue. The packaging contains specific data on the active ingredients. People can see how strong it is and still end up over-consuming. The same is true of alcohol.
Back in the 20s, the government liquor stores in Ontario (which were the only liquor stores) used to keep a record of your purchases and refuse to over-sell. That would be very easy to do today, given how easily we all surrender our privacy rights to big tech, government, etc.
But they’re not going to do that, since government is addicted to drug and gambling money. Government doesn’t really want to fix this problem. I don’t think most members of the public want them to fix it either. We just all look for scapegoats to blame when our own choices go wrong.
-
Well, since the study is Canadian, the labelling argument is a non-issue. The packaging contains specific data on the active ingredients. People can see how strong it is and still end up over-consuming. The same is true of alcohol.
Back in the 20s, the government liquor stores in Ontario (which were the only liquor stores) used to keep a record of your purchases and refuse to over-sell. That would be very easy to do today, given how easily we all surrender our privacy rights to big tech, government, etc.
But they’re not going to do that, since government is addicted to drug and gambling money. Government doesn’t really want to fix this problem. I don’t think most members of the public want them to fix it either. We just all look for scapegoats to blame when our own choices go wrong.
It’s genuinely more or less just more “reefer madness”.
If you actually read my comment and the study carefully, you might notice that.
For example:
Because there is no diagnostic code for CHS, we followed the previous literature identifying CHS ED visits as those in which vomiting (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, Canada [ICD-10-CA] code R11) was the primary diagnosis and a cannabis harm (ICD-10-CA code F12 or T40.7) was an additional diagnosis.19,20 Since CHS is not widely recognized, we developed a secondary outcome measure termed sensitive CHS ED visits, which includes the primary outcome definition and an ED visit with a primary diagnosis of vomiting (ICD-10-CA code R11) plus an ED visit owing to a cannabis harm in the 6 months preceding or following the incident vomiting visit.
So, anyone who’s been labeled to have any sort of harm from cannabis, which a lot of people take to just be use of cannabis. I can show you a recording of a psychiatrist supposedly specialising in drugs and addiction, who told me “there is no safe amount of cannabis you can use”.
And then, when any of those roughly just users, report with vomiting to an ER even 6 months after someone has written down something about cannabis use, it get counted as “cannabis hyperemesis syndrome”.
So because legalisation has made doctors more aware they’re questioning youth more about cannabis use. And since it’s legal, the youths aren’t lying as much as they used to. But they still have the same amount of alcohol overdoses (ie getting so drunk you start vomiting) and if you then visit the ER even just for being too drunk or having a fever with vomiting, you’ll be counted as a “ER CHS patient”.
So you know. You really do need to go and read the things they claim, all the way down to the source. For one most of the things they source in those studies are studies which aren’t exclusively Canadian, making your “well the study is Canadian” argument a bit frail, since the study references other non-Canadian studies.
I’m not against regulation, and I think a boozecard model would be fantastic. For things that actually require it. We had the same in Finland, up until the 70’s, really.
It was from ‘44-’ 70 yeah.
But see that was for booze, not beer. Since growing your own is also legal and east af, trying to control the amount of cannabis wouldn’t work in practice, and as someone who’s known daily users for years, I don’t think there is any inherent factor in cannabis which would cause this syndrome (“syndrome” = a collection of symptoms, not a disease in itself). It’s more bad reporting and bad understanding of the subject.
For one when you’re totally drunk, never smoked weed, you take a large hit of something strong, you can easily start to feel spinning such that you literally vomit like there’s no tomorrow. To the point people who haven’t seen it will genuinely consider taking them to the ER. And during something like that, it does help to be in a hot shower.
However as the drunkenness wears off, the person becomes even more nauseous, as they’re still plenty high without being used to it, and the hangover is creeping in.
But never have I ever seen anyone vomit from cannabis who hasn’t been drinking. I’m not saying they don’t exist or that this syndrome isn’t real. I’m just saying I don’t see a well-explained causal relationship. I just see a bunch of poor correlation, as always.
Anyways, yeah, register and limit. For actual drugs. That’s why booze was on the card but beer wasn’t. You can make that at home and it’s not strong enough to mess you up line vodka will do.
Just the same, cannabis should be legal and ecstasy and others legalised with the Bratt system. People don’t cook mdma at home if there’s some available to purchase legally.
Government is leaving out billions in drug money because there’s a huge market for illegal drugs just going completely unregulated and untaxed.
