>It would be great to see the industry refocus on products that are designed to be consumed in moderation.
I feel that the legal weed industry is speedrunning the past decade of craft brewing. Craft beer focused on growing the scene while focusing on higher and higher ABV beers, but now is transitioning back towards beers that are a bit more sessionable and don’t get you blasted after 2 beers. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the weed industry start focusing on sessionable items sooner rather than later.
Underlying assumption is that moderation is the issue, however it's addiction for those that can't quit. In layman's terms, the brain's chemistry has been altered permanently. This can happen for some even after the first use THC, opioids, alcohol and you name it.
Obviously the progression doesn't happen as fast for some. However, the key being they can't quit in moderation or in excess. Some can abstain for 3 months, some for six, thinking they don't have a problem but then find themselves using even a little. There's a self-rationalization as well as self-centeredness that's part of the disease process of addiction. I would say it's not only a disease process but it is a huge factor. Cross addiction substituting one substance for another is also part of that self-rationalization.
I hear this claim often that your brain chemistry changes from substance use and it makes sense when you look at addicts. But with other things relating to addiction, I found claims to be hyperbole. An example is addiction is a disease no different than cancer. We don't want to tell addicts to just cut it out. But is it true? Are there scans of people before and after a while of chronic substance abuse that shows brain differences? Can we scan someone's brain and tell that they're addicts? Honest question, I don't know
I think a nuance that's lost is the difference in addiction between a pharmacological substance vs a behavior. "Brain scans" and their equivalents will do a much better job revealing the former than the latter. That doesn't make behavioral addictions any less damaging from a holistic view of the patient's health (i.e. their overall quality of life).
To me, I feel as though that behavioral addiction is completely disregarded by the medical community. If someone is lighting up every night / having a drink and want to stop, they need an alternative way of closing out the day. Otherwise of course it'll be difficult.
Well what's behavior and what's addiction? Let's go down a thought exercise. Imagine yourself in the following scenarios:
1. Imagine you're going to Walmart. You see a friend. "You say hi and raise your hand to draw attention" However, they walk right past you without even acknowledging your presence.
What is your first thought? Maybe "Jerk!", "he's busy?".
You don't have control over that first thought, but you do have control over that second thought and your actions thereafter. Addiction messes with your first thoughts and attention. Next scenario
2. A wife and a husband are driving down the road. The wife notices Kohl's is having a 50% off and the husband notices that Andy's liquor store has two six pack for the price of one.
In this case, due to addiction, the husband noticed that Andy's liquor store and that's a craving. His awareness was drawn to that sign with a subconscious cue influenced by addiction.
Therefore, someone who wishes to maintain sobriety has to be very self-aware of their thoughts and actions. They have to guard themselves from triggers, situations, people and then manage those other aspects they can't control.
It's important to acknowledge that addiction is a disease as framed in the above scenarios. However, it does require a conscience behavioral change maintaining a certain level of awareness of self to sustain sobriety.
It isn't helpful for people to view themselves as simply a character flaw when going through addiction because their brain is scarred. It doesn't mean they can't make poor choices and not choose to maintain to pursue sobriety. Their behavior matters and their disease matters.
I am not sure about other drugs, but in the case of alcohol the rewiring is certainly not hyperbolic and not even limited to the brain. Humans have a special physiological relationship to alcohol and the human body will literally rewire both its neurological and digestive system to accommodate the increasing intake of long term alcoholics. It takes months to years for these changes to be undone, if they can be undone at all.
You're talking about withdrawal which is semi-related to an underlying diagnosis of addiction. That is to say someone can go through quitting a substance without withdrawals symptoms yet still have an addiction.
Cannabis has an inverse relationship between potency and health as alcohol. Drinking a dozen beers is (marginally) less dangerous than a dozen shots, because it takes longer to process and alcohol is a toxin. THC isn't a toxin. The smaller amount you inhale, of smoke or vapor, the better. I'll take a puff of some 90+% vapor any day over having to smoke an entire joint for the same effect.
What we need is more accurate vapor delivery devices that can meter better.
Disagree. Those 12 beers contain a vast amount of carbs that will not be in the liquor.
Now, sure, if you slam 12 shots of Cuervo back to back you're going to have a bad time - 12 shots is an entire bottle if you're actually getting full pours.
But if you consumed one shot or one beer every hour... no difference in the effects.
Hah I've known a few people to sip shots at the bar. They don't get shunned for it. It just means people don't buy them a shot.
Also most people who take shots aren't trying to get wasted. Drinking a shot the normal way every half hour to an hour alongside always having a beer to sip until done for the night is fairly standard. e.g. about 6 beers and 3 shots over the course of 2 to 4 hours.
And of course there are plenty of zero-cal mixers (like seltzer water) that you can add to the liquor and make it as sippable as you want.
That's the real play... decent gin, soda water, maybe a splash of lime juice, served on ice in a pint glass (usually ordered as a double or else it's too watery).
You up with something as sippable as beer, with fewer calories and zero added sugar. (except a little from the lime, but lime doesn't have that much by fruit standards).
PS: Shot glasses are for college students. A glencairn (good luck...) or a rocks glass are far better. Much of the taste comes from smell so you really wanna get those vapors up your nose... at least if you're drinking something worth drinking, and not just trying to get plastered on the cheap.
When I was younger, I'd have about a shot an hour or so, and simply drink water or soda in between (4 drinks over the night). I'd meet with a group of people pretty regularly for Karaoke night at a local bar. Doing so, I could pretty much go the night without getting drunk (6'1", 280# at the time). In my own experience, when it's social activity, you generally won't be shunned for not drinking as long as you are participating, and aren't talking down to those that are.
Are these UK shots or US shots? A shot in the US is almost twice as much as a shot in England (1.5oz or 44 mL vs the 25mL shots in England).
In California, 6 beers (typical beers averaging 6% abv) + 3 shots (5.5oz of hard alcohol) over 2-4 hours would be straight up alcoholic levels of consumption.
All experiences differ of course, but I am going to be wasted if I drink 6 beers and 3 shots over 4 hours. The same volume over 2 hours would probably end up sending me to bed.
Inconsistency of dosing has, at least in the past, been a significant concern — especially with regard to medicinal use. Doctors for a long time preferred herb vaporizers (and may still) because it’s frankly just the best way to accurately gauge and dose.
Except vaporizing/smoking gives wildly different results depending on the type of plant and its potency. One puff can either do not much or send you spinning, and your supposed tolerance may not even matter. The flower you smoke looks the same no matter if it has 5% THC or 35% THC, so gauging the potency of inhaled THC is practically impossible.
Edibles are very consistent, at least today they are. The problem with them is that people are stupid and don't know how to find the right dose responsibly. They take a gummy, it tastes pretty good, and then after 15 or 20 minutes they don't feel anything so they take another, because yum, it tastes like candy so why not. Then it starts to kick in after 30 or 40 minutes and it's double the dose so they feel nauseated and sick.
The best way to gauge the effects of an edible dose is to take the edible on an empty stomach, wait about 20 minutes, then eat a meal, and do not take a second dose. After eating your metabolism will get that dose into your blood stream right quick and before you're done with the meal you will definitely be feeling the full effect if you took enough. And if you don't feel much, then the dose is too low. Try again tomorrow. Don't double up the dose in the same sitting, because then you're really not getting an accurate result. Take maybe 1/3 more the next day, try again. If it's still not enough then the next day try a little more. When you find the right dose, then stick to it.
> The flower you smoke looks the same no matter if it has 5% THC or 35% THC
I get what you’re saying - but this is not practically true. Weed that contains 35% THC has a lot to do with the conditions it’s grown in which affects a lot of the other physical qualities of the weed. Smell, color, size of nug, density, humidity all are very correlated with potency.
And none of that matters to 90% of people going into a dispensary these days. A lot of people who weren't "stoners" are going to legal dispensaries and buying whatever the girl at the counter is pushing. They can't tell the smell, color, size, density or anything from one strain to another. Then they smoke too much and get "the spins".
This feels like a negative summary with a lot of assumptions chained on.
Alternate take, dispensaries have enabled many people I know to get a reliable product that acts the same each time they buy it and use it, and let them dial in exactly what strain and quantity and method of ingestion works best for them. Before the commercialization one never had the diversity and reliability of product they have now.
Contrast that to the before times where people, as you put it, bought whatever the dealer was selling.
Excellent and well-outlined info correcting my outdated understanding — which is also why I noted “in the past” several times in my comment :). Sounds like regulation has allowed for greater edible consistency indeed. AND that people taking too much too quick is still a thing, regardless.
That being said, the other side of this (in a pre-legalized world) was that the plants you grew on your own tended to be within a certain potency range, which meant 1 puff roughly equaled another — as opposed to baked goods, where butter could end up spread throughout inconsistently. There’s also the swifter intake-to-feedback loop when smoking/vaping, which made “taking too much” easier to see coming and avoid. Thus my old fashioned POV.
Baked goods usually means pot brownies, but it doesn't matter what type. I fell victim to the delicious brown squares a few times. Then I learned that if I'm going to make a batch of pot brownies, that I need to make 3 batches of brownies with only 1 being "magic", or just 1 batch of pot brownies and 3 batches of chocolate chip cookies - because what do you do when you eat some pot brownies? You want to eat more pot brownies, because they're delicious and you have the munchies now.
But you're right, it's way easier to not "overdose" with inhaled THC than it is with edibles. People just need to approach the two methods differently. Inhaling is instant gratification, where as eating is delayed gratification. Not everyone is capable of delaying gratification because so many people are impatient and impulsive. Edibles are still vastly superior in terms of healthiness so long as they aren't just 95% sugar and 5% THC.
Personally, these days I use "Protabs" which contain 0 sugar, just THC and a binder (probably corn starch) and the high is extremely clean and clear and completely guilt-free. And the dosage is very reliable and repeatable. There's no guessing involved now that I know my tolerance.
Regulation has vastly improved the situation for edibles. You can generally get accurate dosages with precise mixtures in any form factor you desire. However different states have diferring regulation.
What you recently ate can have a big impact. I only bought from reputable brands that had consistent dosages, but my diet could make two doses of the same gummy feel quite different night to night.
For me it was primarily how “heavy” the meal was. Eating 1lb of brisket with some bread would result in the edible taking longer to get into my bloodstream than something like a modest salad and some fruit.
The legal status of cannabis, including edibles, varies widely across different countries and regions. In places where cannabis is illegal or tightly regulated, discussing edibles might be avoided to comply with the law or maintain a more conservative stance on the topic.
> Drinking a dozen beers is (marginally) less dangerous than a dozen shots
It's easy to drink 12 shots in succession, but it's very hard to take 12 beers in a reasonably comparable amount of time. This is not a good comparison. It's obviously much easier to poison yourself with strong alcohol.
I've had a severe lung infection for 3+ months due to vaping and am still recovering.
I know its just an anecdote but people YOU ONLY GET ONE PAIR OF LUNGS and they heal differently then other parts of your body (or they don't heal at all - COPD is TERMINAL).
Agreed. Quitting smoking (THC) and vaping have been the two healthiest decisions I’ve ever made. I was also having breathing issues, though thankfully never as acute an issue as you did.
Idk about cannabis but I hear this all the time with cigarettes vs vaping and I just know it's a bunch of FUD.
I can not smoke cigarettes, never liked them, always got headaches from them. With vaping quality liquid I have no issues and I'm a heavy user. Not saying it's good for you but claiming it is worse or the same as literal smoke is just wrong
I won’t argue thar vaping is worse, but I will say that having less immediate discomfort at the time of use is not a solid basis for concluding it is not.
I'm talking about cartridges, which often throw chunks of superhot oil onto the lungs. let's wait for the research in 20 years that says it's also terrible.
Not sure how cannabis vapes work, but for the "I enjoy and/or am addicted to nicotine, but would rather not inhale CO, tars, particulates, etc" type, if you are vaping any oils, you're doing something wrong.
That sort of vape liquid is nicotine in a suspension of food/medical grade PG/VG and likely some small bit of flavoring in the same. It's essentially a tiny version of the fog machines that blast out vapor in nightclubs.
Very much in agreement. Cannabis as a medicine means needing other cannabinoids other than THC. The minors all contribute in ways that we're just now really starting to study for a better understanding of the why.
I wonder what the impact of cannabis being illegal federally has on this sort of thing.
A lot of people went from drinking beer and wine when Prohibition was first enacted in the US and moved to liquor. This happened because many of the speakeasies would rather have a given volume of liquor versus beer because they can serve more customers and there is less of a concern about your product being large and conspicuous.
With illicit drugs you often find the producers making the drugs more and more concentrated so they can move more product in a smaller volume and then step on it to make up the bulk later down the supply chain.
It would make sense to me that dispensaries would be more interested in buying and receiving higher THC product because they can either do more with less or they can have customers come in less often and serve more of them.
When you put metrics on something. You see its limits... then you push them. Every industry does that till they find sky is the limit but its actually about balance.
I dug the initial intense craft beers that started coming out in the late 90s/early 2ks, but got sick of it pretty quickly. A highball with American whiskey is my goto chillout drink, but when I drink beer, I like subtlety-- European pilsners, really mellow dry stouts, brown ales, and things like that. Most US craft beer fans' palates, and the commensurate offerings from craft breweries, are so jacked up that they don't even realize how distant they are from something I'm interested in drinking. The styles of the same name offered by US craft breweries are so extra compared to their namesake styles that they're totally different animals.
I'm not going to lie-- I'm also put off by some vibes in the craft beer scene has taken on in the past 10 or 15 years. When many craft beer fans see me order a classic European pilsner, with shocking frequency they a) attempt to shame me for ordering such a 'boring' beer, b) assume they need to educate me about this amazing thing called craft beer that I've clearly never encountered before, or c) assume my palate is unsophisticated. Like... listen bro... I'm a classically trained chef-- I've spent more time actively developing my palate than you've spent even thinking about it. I can tell you things you didn't know about the beer you're drinking based solely on your breath. Some very big names in craft beer were my multiple-times-per-week drinking buddies for years. I'm glad you've cultivated a passion for a locally-made food/bev product... now go be smug about your foamy bug spray juice elsewhere. lol
An old strip from the newsprint comic Zits has always stuck in my mind. In the strip, the kid takes a sip of his father's wheatgrass smoothie and describes it as licking the bottom of a lawnmower.
That is how I feel about most of the overpoweringly strong IPAs that have been all the rage for so long.
That's wild. Sorry people were negative to you. That sort of reaction is very alien to me. I've had thousands of beers with many hundreds of people and never really encountered that.
No need to apologize for other people's bad behavior. Craft beer doesn't have more snobs than any other group of passionate people-- certainly not more than fancy food-- but the nerdy one-upsmanship is much more prevalent. I think for some of these guys it's their equivalent to trash talking about sports or other kinds of fandom, and for others, it's a way to quell insecurity about their own knowledge level in a realm that they consider competitive.
I worked in bars and restaurants as a side gig for about 15 years and full-time for a few so the sheer number of people I've encountered naturally means I'll have encountered more dinks than most. And because of my food/bev-industry-heavy social set, I've spent quite a lot of time in the more "serious" craft beer bars, and those are magnets for that type. That said, I've also spent a ton of time in high-end restaurants and wine bars and never had anyone make snide comments about, say, ordering a more straightforward wine or a cheeseburger (but in kitchens, I've definitely heard chefs talk shit about people ordering burgers... mostly because they're frustrated more people aren't trying their more creative offerings. And then they go home and eat hot pockets for dinner.) And most sommeliers I've encountered are so worried about coming across like snobs that they almost overcompensate.
I mean, I'd definitely try such a thing if someone offered it to me. You often can't predict how multiple complex flavors will snap together and sometimes weird-sounding things are counterintuitively amazing. That said, the chance I'd drink something like that regularly is zero.
While I'm classically trained, my focus is from-scratch bar food while keeping it at the same price point as the frozen food service shit. I used white truffles, beluga caviar, and things like that when working in fine dining and in culinary school, but never once have I purchased such things for my own menu.
Considering that I'm responding to other people's assumption that they are superior to me based on my beer order, I don't feel the slightest bit bad about taking a dig at them.
As an aside, how often do you offer unsolicited patronizing critique of other people's beer order?
Might be because there's a lot of people like me that only like that style of beer. I don't dislike other types of beer, but I'd rather drink something else than a lager, stout, porter, pilsner, etc. I've found that there aren't a lot of diehards for any other style, but IPA diehards are a dime a dozen.
Agreed, IPAs(west coast, hazy, etc) are pretty much the only beer I enjoy drinking(for taste). Occasionally, I'll take a lager on a hot day when I want something really "light".
I could drink a hazy pale or NEIPA anytime, it would be my desert island style for sure. Never liked the high IBU IPAs that were everywhere for a while because of the bitterness. (And I love all the Campari-adjacent cocktails)
I feel similarly about the store-bought THC products in Canada. They're like high ABV, hopped-up IPAs when really I just want a light, refreshing, repeatable beer with good flavour.
yep. I'm currently pretty fatigued with the offerings at bottle shops and taprooms....increasingly glad I committed to brewing my own a long while back. Currently sipping on a very delightful British Golden Ale - a style I haven't seen commercially available around me, but will now be a standard in my summer brewing.
Why would an industry that sells a addictive and harmful product do that? alcohol is more harmful and cannabis is more addictive (comparing how many say they try to quit), but apart from that they're not so different from the market perspective.
Craft beers are just a niche. I don't trust the industry to self-regulate towards less profit.
Gotta just be blunt here and let you know that yours id an awful take and those are awful reference points you're drawing from there. I'm stunned to find anyone this far removed from the release of "Reefer Madness" who believes that cannabis is more addictive than alcohol.
As a recovered addict who has spent many months in multiple rehabs and many hours at meetings -- with hundreds of other addicts, I can assure you that booze is EASILY more dangerous/unhealthy/addictive than weed. Across the board; worse by every general measure.
Dangerous/unhealth/addictive are three different things! I specifically said alcohol is more dangerous and unhealthy.
Judging from the number of users who say they would like to stop using it but can't, cannabis is more addictive, however. There are plenty of surveys of this, and I've seen even cannabis activists take them seriously, advocating offerings to cut down/quit similar to those we offer to smokers.
I don't know why, and this is just one possible measure of addictiveness, but it is what it is.
It seems difficult to measure this, as it's wildly varying in addictiveness depending on the wildly varying affects each human gets from the substances.
Yes, it's just one possible way to measure. But I think the number of users who say they've tried to cut down/quit and failed, is a pretty practical measure.
The FDIC's statement shared that: As of December 31, 2022, Silicon Valley Bank had approximately $209.0 billion in total assets and about $175.4 billion in total deposits
The question is what haircut the FDIC will take on the $209b when they forcefully liquidate all securities. If the above data is still accurate, the FDIC can make depositors whole as long as they don't take more than a 16% haircut when liquidating.
SVB recently liquidated their AFS bond portfolio at ~90c on the dollar. And, this traunch of securities is very sensitive to interest rate changes.
Their HTM bond portfolio consists mostly of securities that could be sold today for ~80c on the dollar.
Given the above, it seems likely depositors will be made close to whole. Then again, who knows what's hidden from public eye.
I wish Ford the best of luck. The last time I worked at Ford AV, there wasn't a clear sense of direction after the initial kickoff project that was done to publicize Argo's AV chops. Hopefully this will have a better ending than that initial attempt.
This article might as well have a subtitle of "Damn, I really hate Elon and all his stupid fanboys". I think this is the line that made me roll my eyes the most:
A fun irony here is that the Cybertruck's evident frailty as a heavy-duty utility vehicle will disqualify it, absolutely, in the eyes of the median American pickup-truck buyer
The median American pickup truck buyer isn't the target audience. The audience are techies who want to drive something that doesn't look like anything else on the road while still sitting up high so they're on eye level with the aforementioned American pickups.
Not surprising. If you can work remotely and are fed up with local/state/both parts of California government, why not move to the Tahoe/Reno area and enjoy zero income tax, lower sales tax, and potentially cheaper housing prices and the corresponding lower property taxes? I last lived in Northern Nevada in 2016 and the stream of California "refugees" was always a constant topic.
The primary reason why people leave CA is housing prices not "fed up with CA govt", that's a story that the right wing likes to tell, but it basically comes down to the fact that housing is unaffordable. CA ranks #11 in taxes (there's like 7-8 red states ahead of it https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer...) for average households. People like to wax on about the top 13.3% rate, but very few people pay that, while at the same time, property taxes are atypically low.
The main reason comes down to this: Median home price in CA is >$700,000, 2x-3x the rest of the nation (except Hawaii). Now there are government reasons why housing construction is lower, but there's also reasons why demand is so high: people have flocked to CA during economic booms. During the 90s dot-com boom, a 2-bedroom apartment in the Bay Are went from $1200 to $3400. After the 2000 dot-com crash, it dropped back down. Then, after 2009, prices climbed again.
You have a large number of white collar professionals wanting to be in the area (yes, despite the 'California exodus' story that keeps getting told, CA still is a net brain drain on the rest of the nation for professionals according to government stats https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/republicans/2019...), and you have existing home owners voting NIMBY to make it harder to accommodate them, the result is prices spiking.
Thanks for the link. I was hoping that someone was going through and cataloging as much of the Titanic as possible. Hopefully we get to the point where we can turn drones loose to explore the ship as much as possible before it degrades.
I'm curious, how did you find a condotel to buy into? This is the first I've heard of something like this, and I live in a pretty touristy area of Florida.
Our original plan was to move to Florida full stop. We were looking on Redfin for a condo with a view, access to pools, walking distance to restaurants and it showed up.
We called the real estate agent and she explained the concept and said we could only live there 180 days. I was initially disappointed. But then my wife said we wanted to travel anyway, so why not travel around the US the rest of the year.
BTW, I tried to find the most even handed article of the pros and cons. Most of the sites you find are by real estate agents who want you to buy. Let me be more clear.
You will lose money over the course of the year on almost all of them even if you put the required 25-30% down.
The income offsets some of the holding costs.
I had a plan going in and this was never meant to be an investment.
The clip seemed pretty mild to me? Basically says that he wants to do the joke, but it got no laughter, so he's not doing it. You can see worse on an anonymous Twitter feed.
You have to put it in context. That stream is/was something very particular.
The AI is terrible at making jokes, so the stream is funny to watch because it's a non-stop torrent of repeated failed attempts at telling jokes.
"Regular" jokes are delivered in the exact same way, with the exact same result. What you are reading as intentional irony and/or sarcasm really is just you projecting your expectations.
There is no way whatsoever to distinguish a self-deprecating joke from the failed delivery of an offensive one. If anything, the latter is more likely than the former, since failed delivery is the norm. (Talking about this stream in particular, not AI-generated humor in general.)
I feel that the legal weed industry is speedrunning the past decade of craft brewing. Craft beer focused on growing the scene while focusing on higher and higher ABV beers, but now is transitioning back towards beers that are a bit more sessionable and don’t get you blasted after 2 beers. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the weed industry start focusing on sessionable items sooner rather than later.