Early at the turn of the century culture massaging movements emerged in communities and borrowing from Professor Chomsky’s observations around creating consent adopted a model for ‘arriving at consensus’ which essentially was the manufacturing of it.

The protagonist for a new consensus starts with a pre-determined outcome and then choreographs all other elements to create this (largely hidden to the public) outcome. So, when it ‘hits’ the public arena, the uninformed average citizen believe this is what ‘most people think is okay.’

Manipulative tasks are couched in purported investigative vehicles, giving at least the appearance of ‘objectivity’. Confirmation bias then interprets data/evidence to suit the preferred emerging narrative, and contrary data downplayed or dismissed. Nothing unusual for any protagonist.

‘Community consultation’ must be seen to be important and considered, but again depending on the gatekeepers of the process, will determine what gets in and out.

When it comes to legislating for the public release of a psychotropic toxin – a drug of dependency – then the manufactured consensus of the ‘felt needs’ of the drug user cannot be what informs such legislation. The health and well-being of the entire community, both short and long term, must be the priority consideration, not merely an addendum in this arena – well, that is what one would hope.

When all smokescreens of the opinions, demands and other data that attempts to minimize not only harms of a drug, but the accountability/liability for it, then the final filter for best-practice for the wider community (and particularly the protection of children), public health protecting actions should be the final arbiter.

If prevention is better than cure – and it always is – then shouldn’t best-practice be the cornerstone for policy and legislation making. Science, health, and evidence-based best practice drive the decision, not the manufactured ‘populist pitch’? These priorities are what are applied to Tobacco in our nation, and the agenda to drive this drug of dependence from the landscape is the public health outcome sought.

‘Voting’ for medicine was the first error with cannabis, now the attempt is to use parliamentary process to ‘vote’ for legitimized recreational practice – But that was always the agenda of the pro-drug lobby.  

This was all masterfully reflected in the recent Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into Cannabis Use.

The ‘squeaky wheel’ of the primed pro-drug lobby was given ample space to peddle their position on Pot, with many of the debunked ‘chestnuts’ of pro-legalisation lobby being resubmitted, yet again.

The 2018 Federal Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into The Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018  saw essentially the same thing being repeated here on a State level. We saw the wheeling out well worn ‘war on drug has failed’ memes, law and order costs, and potential revenues from a taxed ‘legal’ product. Where once we could forecast the failing of these juxtaposes as poor arguments, we can now, due to failed legalisation experiments in Canada, Colorado and California, state that reality very clearly.

Ah, but Victoria will do it differently and we won’t make the same mistakes as other jurisdictions, even though all permission models increase the use of unhealthy and dangerous products and subsequently, the increase of their attending harms.

And so, on August 5^th, 2021, the Victorian Parliament’s Legal and Social Issues Committee’s Inquiry into the Use of Cannabis in Victoria Majority Report was released.

Of course, two of the ‘silver bullets’ (we noted) to all potential negative outcomes from cannabis legalisation was ‘education’ and ‘harm reduction’. Legitimate sounding options and certainly education is a key to instructing the public – but what kind of education and in what context?

The nuance of the report is that we can just let cannabis ‘off the leash’ and if bad stuff happens or more pointedly, gets noticed, then tell people, particularly the young, how potentially dangerous it is. If that fails, then any harms that present are simply damage managed, as if it were a ‘band-aid on a boo-boo’.

Yet the Improvised Explosive Device in the middle of all this pseudo-protective banter – the agent de saboteur – is legal protection, the ultimate permission to use. No ‘silver bullet’ can contend with this weapon.

However inversely, if cure was better than prevention and more cost effective and life benefiting, then we’d all be jumping in, but that just aint so!

So, rather than finding and/or using existing vehicles to reduce demand and supply, as we have done so successfully with one of the other two drugs that do the most harm precisely because they are legal – tobacco; then we feign exacerbation and declare the only answer to a growing drug use problem, is to add it to the currents of trade and pretend it won’t join the public health destroying fraternity of tobacco and alcohol.

This, of course, is where rational (and not cannabis impacted) minds come into play.

With the majority of contributors being from the pro-cannabis sector, it is important to note that a Minority Report by the Liberal and National Party Senators who were on the committee were able to crystalize what really should have been the emphasis of the majority report. The key recommendations in this report were as follows,

Recommendation 1: That the Victorian Government does not legalise cannabis for recreational use.

Recommendation 2: That the Victorian Government supports Victoria Police’s submission and evidence to the Inquiry noting the lack of evidence from international jurisdictions on any longitudinal studies conducted on the mental, physical and social impacts as a result of the legalisation of cannabis.

Recommendation 3: That the Victorian Government reviews current drug education programs in schools to determine if they are effective in preventing young people from using cannabis and in informing them of the dangers posed by cannabis and other illicit substances.

Recommendation 4: That the Victorian Government considers whether broader public health campaigns are required to inform Victorians of the dangers of drug driving, particularly the dangers of cannabis consumption.

You will note their emphasis on properly anchored and supported education of the community, and particularly the most vulnerable – our children should be a clear priority whilst keeping in play the illegal status of this drug, thus enabling it to be harnessed along with education to give it more cultural leverage, not mere pointless punitive responses.  

The Victorian Premier, Mr Daniel Andrews was also quick to see through the consensus manufacturing façade of this ‘permission model’ document and even in a quick sound bite also encapsulated just one of the many reasons legalizing ‘weed’ is a bad idea.

Vic premier dismisses call to legalise pot

Mr Andrews said he had "no intention" of legalising the drug. "If you want to know why, then have a look at the sections in the mental health royal commission that talk about dual diagnosis, drug-induced psychosis," he told reporters outside parliament on Thursday.

"Others have a different view, they're entitled to have a different view, but as the leader of the government I've just made the government's position very clear."

Northstar News

The American experience with both prescription drugs and the now with legitimizing the ‘recreational use’ of psychotropic toxins – Cannabis first and foremost – has had many foreseeable and unintended consequences.

Even the most avid pro-drug advocate when looking rationally (and out from under the influence of any drug) can see commercializing and liberalizing drug use is a minefield. It remains frankly, mind boggling, that advocates for unleashing another psychotropic toxin into the currents of trade will somehow avoid any or all the harms previously (and inevitably) experienced through other drug policy exercises – Tobacco, Alcohol, and Opioids specifically.

Yet, as mentioned previously, the propaganda spun ‘wishful thinking’ that Harm Reduction mechanisms will morph into the panacea of these emerging ills, and adequately addressing the damage, is just short of delusional. So goes the rhetoric of the pro-drug lobby – one such example here

And at risk of repeating ourselves, the backup of ‘education’ as mentioned in this report will head off a potential public health crisis is also framed in a, no doubt unintentional, cognitive dissonance. It is important to understand that education and legislation are a far more effective behaviour changing vehicle than education alone. Education cannot simply be data, information, and statistic. For the Cognitive domain to truly instruct both individual and society, it must be imbedded in the Affective domain – ‘Why’ is more important than simply, what, how, and when.

However, it is the Judicial Educator – a law, not merely prohibiting, but protecting, that adds exponentially to the proactive and protective capacity of education when it is tasked to that end, not simply a punitive response. 

However, when you excise education from protective legislation you weaken its capacity to achieve those protective outcomes – But hey, that’s just what an addiction for profit industry needs to realize its wealth at others expense, goal.

Worse still in the fine print of these recommendations is to misappropriate the vital tool of education to talk about ‘reducing harm’, not by delaying or denying uptake, but by actually instructing people is ‘safer use’ practices. Yes, some people use drugs and in a risky way, but that is not a licence to then expose an entire cohort to such dangerous practices. (Actually, introducing a psychotropic toxin into the body is that risk – agency, capacity and dignity are all compromised at that point, and ‘education’ from that point until fully sober, is redundant.)

Against the education best-practice principles of addressing aberrant, deviant or disruptive behaviours in a student cohort, instead of isolating the drug taking student and helping them exit drug use, the harm reduction use of education is to now instruct all the peers of that drug using student in how to use a drug to minimize ‘serous’ harm. Remembering all drug use does damage to the developing brain – up to 28 years of age.

The Recommendations on any further ‘permission models’ in this report should be utterly ignored.

Instead, protective elements that promote, endorse, or legislate for the following should be taken up by legislators to empower our communities and their families to reduce the use of Cannabis and thus reduce the health, social, mental health, productivity and environmental harms it produces.

• Highest priority of Demand Reduction on Cannabis use for all community, but particularly the young 10 – 25 yr. demographic.
• Public Health and Community Campaigns, of the same intensity and consistency as the QUIT campaign be adopted and fully backed by the above protective behaviour strategies.
• Cannabis use exiting Recovery focus a priority.
• Re-tasking (not weakening) of the existing protective legislation for that recovery end, not enabling greater permission or punitive modes.

Also see…

The Conundrum Continues

IASIC – Doctors Educating on Marijuana

Smart Approaches to Marijuana – SAM

Communications Team - Dalgarno Institute

According to recent report released by the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, cannabis use disorders and treatment for such is increasing. And as the following data reveals, the demographic experiencing the most harm is the under 30 yr. cohort.

Before reading the following excerpt from this report, it is important to note a couple of important facts:

• The brain is still developing up to the age of 25-28 for females and 28-32 for males or even later
• Over 90% of all addictions burgeon before the age of 30.
• Potencies of engineered cannabis ‘plant’ are significantly greater than even in the last 5 years.  More than that, extraction and delivery methods of THC in such mediums as wax or ‘shatter’ can be as high as 90% THC .
• Each of the following treatment processes not only has a significant dollar value attached to them, but the data also points to other tacit costs, such as loss of productivity, welfare costs and harm to others well-being.

                    The Data

• • In 2019–20, cannabis was reported as a drug of concern in one-third (33%) of all closed treatment episodes, either as a principal or additional drug of concern:
  • cannabis was the third most common principal drug of concern in nearly 1 in 5 (18% or 40,305) treatment episodes
  • the most common additional drugs of concern reported with cannabis included alcohol (32%), nicotine (24%) or amphetamines (23%) but these drugs are not the subject of any treatment within the episode (Figure DRUGS1; tables SD.6–8).
  • In 2019–20, 27,701 clients received treatment where cannabis was the principal drug of concern, two-thirds (66%) of clients were male and nearly 1 in 5 (19%) were Indigenous Australians (tables SC.6–SC.8, SCR.26).
  • For clients whose principal drug of concern was cannabis: male (68%) and female (67%) clients were most likely to be aged 10–29 

                  Treatment

Since 2010–11, counselling has remained the most common form of treatment, accounting for around 40% (15,801 episodes in 2019–20) of cannabis treatment episodes annually. In 2019–20, both support and case management (6,599 episodes), and information and education (6,393 episodes) were the second most common main treatment types (both 16%) after counselling                                

                   In 2019–20, for treatment episodes where cannabis was the principal drug of concern:

• • treatment was most likely to take place in a non-residential treatment facility (65%)
  • most (80%) episodes where counselling was the main treatment type took place in a
  • non–residential treatment facility (Table SD.44)
  • almost half (46%) of episodes lasted 2 days to 90 days and 33% ended within 1 day (Table SE.25)
  • the median duration of a treatment episode was 22 days
  • treatment duration varied by treatment type:
  • the median duration for counselling was 8 weeks (57 days)
  • support and case management as the main treatment type had a median duration of 6 weeks (43 days)
  • rehabilitation lasted nearly 6 weeks (40 days)
  • information and education/assessment only had the shortest duration (1 day) (Table SD.47)
  • two-thirds (66%) of closed episodes ended with an expected cessation
  • where clients were diverted from the criminal justice system, 35% completed treatment due to programs sanctioned by a drug court, and 3 in 10 (31%) treatment episodes ended with an expected treatment completion, with 3% of episodes ending unexpectedly (Table SD.45).

                     Source of Referral and Diversion Clients

• • In 2019–20, for treatment episodes where cannabis was the principal drug of concern:
  • the most common sources of referral were health service (30%), followed by self/family (28%)
  • 1 in 5 (8,497) treatment episodes where cannabis was the principal drug of concern were for clients whose referral was from a police or court diversion (Table SD.37)
  • about 1 in 9 (14,447) of all clients receiving treatment for their own drug use, had a diversion referral and were more likely to be treated for cannabis (54%) as a principal drug of concern; with 21% of diversion clients also receiving non-diversion referrals to treatment for cannabis as a principal drug of concern (Figure CANNABIS3; Table SE.27)
  • this was followed by amphetamines (15% referrals from diversion compared with 39% from non-diversion), alcohol (11% diversion compared with 16% non-diversion) and heroin (less than 1% diversion compared with 5% non-diversion) (Figure CANNABIS3; Table SE.27) . AIHW Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services Report – Cannabis  

Now, rather than go into reams of data in a limited Blog space, we just want to ask some important questions or not only you, the reader, but the Guardians of our community. Questions that require more than a dismissive shrug or ubiquitous Harm Reduction based avoidance meme.

• Why has there been such and increase in the demand for treatment of Cannabis Use Disorder?
• Who ultimately (besides the cannabis using individual) bears the brunt of the financial cost of this ‘recreational’ and illegal activity?
• What are some of the key drivers for this increasing demand, and therefore, use of this drug?

There are other questions, we could pose, but the last one, we will give a part answer to – an answer we encourage you to investigate further.

• Will this concerning culture, economic and health diminishing activity and it’s attending harms increase or decrease with greater permission?

The short answer to that is, undoubtedly – We have seen a gradual but recently accelerating mode of de facto decriminalisation around ‘recreational’ cannabis use; with less and less action by law enforcement on use, the relentless propaganda around ‘medicinal’ pot and the ever-increasing push of pro-drug advocates in the policy space to normalise drug use.  

And, of course, the legislative ‘noise’ of tacit promotion that certain parliamentarians make, touting the idea of legalisation. Add to that a heavily manipulated and sycophantic pro-drug social media culture and you have an emboldened drug using demographic gaining ‘social’ clout and driving, if ever so surreptitiously, a faux cultural sentiment of ‘approval’.

We wrote on these Permission Models in our last blog post and we’ll talk more to this in our next one – Looking at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Use of Cannabis in Victoria. Until then…

Communications Team @ Dalgarno Institute

Forget Drug 'Pushers' - Watch the 'Promotors'

Very recent Australian research has confirmed what we have known principally for a long time – permission promotes participation. The Dalgarno institute understood this fact over a decade ago and posited our long-standing principle “Availability, Acceptability, Accessibility and Affordability, All Increase Consumption.”  Our 2014 paper; The Most Effective Drug Pushing Measure Ever – Permission was also peer reviewed and a précised version published in Journal of Global Drug Policy & Practice.Journal of Global Drug Policy & Practice.

Of course, when traditional ‘common sense’ held sway, this was never in doubt, but we have an un-common ‘logic’ in play when it comes to drug policy, particularly in the last 10 years.

Pro-drug ideology and activism have worked diligently in all attempts to normalize drug use, which very much includes morphing nomenclature, redefining ‘common’ and of course, ignoring all evidence that sheds unflattering light on the community safety, health and well-being dismantling permission promoting agenda.

Legalisation, decriminalisation, and medicalization are all vehicles being engaged to promote the permission paradigm on drug use.

Experiment Already Proves Principle

As this social experiment has been operating for years now in the US state of Colorado (Ground Zero for US legalization), the evidence emerging from the liberalisation model further proves the prediction in the Australia research below.

According to Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (Dept of Public Safety) Report: Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado A Report Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-33.4-516 July 2021

• In 2019, 19.0% of adults reported marijuana use in the past 30 days, compared to 13.4% in 2014, a significant increase.
• Males have significantly higher past 30-day use (22.9%) than females (15.1%).
• Adults 26-34 year reported the highest past 30-day usage rates (29.4%), followed by 18-25 year-olds (28.8%), 35-64 year-olds (17.3%), and those 65 years and older (9.3%).
• The marijuana usage rates of those 65 and older has more than tripled since 2014.
• Those reporting smoking marijuana flower decreased from 87.2% of users in 2016 to 76.1% in 2019. This compares to increases in eating/drinking (35.2% in 2016 to 43.0% in 2019, vaping (22.9% in 2016 to 32.0% in 2019), and dabbing (16.8% in 2016 to 19.6% in 2019)
• According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, administered by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the prevalence rates for marijuana use in the past 30 days increased for young adults (18- to 25-years old), from 21.2% in 2005/06 (pre-commercialization) to 31.2% in 2013/14 (post-commercialization), but has stabilized at 34.4% in 2018/19. Reported 30-day marijuana use by adults ages 26 years and older increased from 5.4% in 2005/06 to 15.6% in 2018/19

The Canadian cannabis conundrum grew particulalry and again, predictably, worse for the youth cohort. In very recently published research we see again the failed promise of 'no greater youth uptake' manifest. Published in Science Direct the following concerning data does not bode well for an emerging generation and the society they are core in shaping.

Changes in cannabis use modes among Canadian youth across recreational cannabis                    legalization: Data from the COMPASS prospective cohort study

                  Highlights:

• • Less than a third of youth maintained a single mode of cannabis useacross legalization.
  • More than three times as many participants expanded their use modes as reduced them.
  • Maintenance of multiple modes was associated with other substance use and depressive symptoms
  • Using cannabis in multiple ways linked to binge drinking and depressive symptoms

Conclusions: Multi-modal cannabis use increased among Canadian youth in our sample. Its association with other substance use and depressive symptoms may indicate clustering of additional harms.Screening for this use pattern may assist in identifying high-risk substance use and should be considered in the design of harm reduction programming.

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) have also outed the mendacious ‘if you legalize cannabis, usage wont increase’ claim in their research that unequivocally demonstrates that permission models deliver increased use, and all the attending harms that accompany the use of this engineered psychotropic toxin.

Source: Urgent & Emerging Issues in Prevention (15^th Annual Prevention Day)

The following is that Australian research…

Who would try (or use more) cannabis if it were legal?

Increase in cannabis consumption likely if decriminalised in Australia says new study published 26 July 2021.

A new study has found that an estimated 4.2 per cent of the population aged 14 and over, who have never tried cannabis before, would try it if use of the drug were legal.

Led by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), UNSW Sydney, the study also found that an estimated 2.6 per cent of the population said they were likely to use more cannabis if it were legal.

Lead author, Professor Don Weatherburn from NDARC said, “These findings clearly conflict with the popular view that legalisation of cannabis would not increase consumption.”

Using data from the Australian National Drug Strategy Household survey, the study found that the decriminalisation of cannabis use would likely lead to an increase in consumption of cannabis among young people with mental health problems.

“Consumption of cannabis would be substantially higher among males, younger people and people who suffer from mild, moderate and/or severe level of psychological stress,” said Professor Weatherburn.

The study states that while the vast majority of people may be unaffected by any change in the legislative status of cannabis use, small changes in the number of heavy users of cannabis could have significant effects on demand for treatment and drug-related harms.

“This is especially true when, as in the present case, vulnerable adolescents and teenagers are among those most likely to use more cannabis if it is decriminalised,” said Professor Weatherburn.

“If cannabis use is decriminalised, Australian State and Territory Governments should make provision for a possible increase in demand for drug treatment and for public education on the risks associated with frequent/prolonged cannabis use,” said Professor Weatherburn.

For more https://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/news/increase-cannabis-consumption-likely-if-decriminalised-australia-says-new-study

For complete study go to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dar.13360

 By Dalgarno Institute Communications Team

Cannabis Impact on Adolescent Neurodevelopment and the subsequent harms have been researched and reported on in journals since at least 2015. Awareness on these unquestioning harms has been in play for years now, and despite growing and confirming evidence, disregard for the well-being and future of our teens and young adults, the pot propaganda excises this data from its public square offering. The following is just a small sample of the evidence-based research on these short and long-term harms.

1) American College of Paediatricians article Marijuana Use: Detrimental to Youth – (2018)

 Although increasing legalization of marijuana has contributed to the growing belief that marijuana is harmless, research documents the risks of its use by youth are grave. Marijuana is addicting, has adverse effects upon the adolescent brain, is a risk for both cardio-respiratory disease and testicular cancer, and is associated with both psychiatric illness and negative social outcomes. Evidence indicates limited legalization of marijuana has already raised rates of unintended marijuana exposure among young children, and may increase adolescent use. Marijuana Use: Detrimental to Youth | American College of Pediatricians (acpeds.org)

2) Marijuana worse for teen brains than alcohol, study finds – (2018)

Marijuana use causes more long-term damage to teen brains than alcohol use, according to a new study entitled “A Population-Based Analysis of the Relationship Between Substance Use and Adolescent Cognitive Development.”

The study – completed by researchers at the University of Montreal – followed 3,800 Montreal teens over the course of four years. As part of the study, teen participants were questioned about their marijuana and alcohol use, and took computer-based cognitive tests.

They found that marijuana had more of an effect on the teens’ skills, memory and behavior than alcohol… Even after students reported stopping marijuana, their cognition did not improve.

“Cannabis causes cognitive impairment and delayed cognitive development in adolescents," Patricia Conrad, the lead author and professor of psychiatry at the University of Montreal, told NBC News. “This study focuses on the neuropsychological effects of cannabis. We think it’s important because it is linked to how someone functions in life.”

The findings were published in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Read more.

3) Growing up high: Neurobiological consequences of adolescent cannabis use - (2019)

Furthermore, adolescent THC exposure also caused affective and cognitive abnormalities including deficits in social interactions, memory processing and anxiety regulation… Adolescent cannabis use is associated with behavioral changes related to reward and motivation in humans. Paradoxically, this use has both been suggested to increase motivation for other drug use (the gateway hypothesis) and a potential "amotivation syndrome" in which individuals are less willing to expend effort to receive a reward. For more https://medicalxpress.com/.../2019-05-high...

Growing evidence even this year continues the alarm…

4) Younger age of first cannabis use or prescription drug misuse is associated with faster development of substance use disorders: A new study shows that in the time after first trying cannabis or first misusing prescription drugs, the percentages of young people who develop the corresponding substance use disorder are higher among adolescents (ages 12-17) than young adults (ages 18-25). In addition, 30% of young adults develop a heroin use disorder and 25% develop a methamphetamine use disorder a year after first using heroin or methamphetamine. These findings, published in JAMA Pediatrics, emphasize the vulnerability of young people to developing substance use disorders

5) Cannabis Use Impact on Adolescence Neurodevelopment https://www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au/.../Adolescent... Conclusions and Relevance Results suggest that cannabis use during adolescence is associated with altered neurodevelopment, particularly in cortices rich in cannabinoid 1 receptors and undergoing the greatest age-related thickness change in middle to late adolescence."

"Cannabis is a commonly used psychoactive drug, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Relative to the general population, past-year prevalence rates of cannabis use are greatest among teenagers, and more than one-third of 12th graders in the United States report using cannabis in the past year.1,2 Seventy-eight percent of first-time cannabis users are between the ages of 12 and 20 years."

There is no evidence on cannabis leading in any positive direction in relation to brain development and short and long-term brain health – none. Yet the continued push in attempting to focus on any tiny ‘beneficial’ outcome from cannabis use, no matter how small, is relentless.

Of course, the discounting and discarding of all such growing research above is further evidence of a market – not science and health – driven ‘medicinal mantras’. This alone should be alarming the gate-keepers of public health in our municipalities, communities and nations.

Communication Team, Dalgarno Institute

Harmless Hemp and Passive Toxicity – Not New, but a Growing Concern.

Not unsurprisingly, the Cannabis Industry creates many and varied ‘contaminants’ to the environment, community and humanity itself, but it also creates its very own irony in the contaminant context.

As far back as 2015, concerns were being raised about cannabis contaminants, but not in perhaps the way we view it now.

In Southern Oregon (USA) marijuana growers wanted to ban industrial hemp production from the region out of fear that hemp may pollinate their cannabis crops and render them worthless!

“Allowing industrial hemp in an area known for churning out high-grade marijuana could undermine the industry”, growers argue…"It basically makes the medicine worthless,"

Hmmm, isn’t Cannabidiol (CBD) and other Cannabinoids that are supposed to be the ‘medicine’, not really Delta 9 THC? CBD is seemingly not impacted by Hemp cross-pollination, only the ‘recreational quality’ product, so why the hysteria? Ah, the cannabis logic is confusing.

The zeal for the addiction for profit sector of the Marijuana market, engendered a paranoia that cross pollination with the all but zero THC content hemp, will weaken and thus render uncommercial their ‘recreational’ product, which they referred to as ‘medicine’.

However, no concerns were being raised back then that the reverse may be true.

In a paper published as far back as August 2000 research-based warnings were already being issued about this blurring of the lines with Hemp and other Cannabis strains.  The following excerpt from Cannabis, Hemp, THC in the Food-Cosmetic Supply gives some insight,

Another unknown is hemp as forage for animals.  According to Stan Blade, a director of crop diversification for Alberta Agriculture, a program that will test hemp over the next year as feed for livestock is being considered in Canada.  Forage hemp will be tested on cattle against a more traditional mixture of oats and barley. 

Buffalo, the common dairy animal of Pakistan, are allowed to graze on Cannabis sativa (hemp), which, after absorption, is metabolized into a number of psychoactive agents.  These agents are ultimately excreted through the urine and milk, making the milk, used by the people of the region, subject to contamination.  Depending on the amount of milk ingested and the degree of contamination, the milk could result in a low to moderate level of chronic exposure to THC and other metabolites, especially among the children raised on this milk.  Analysis from the urine obtained from children who were being raised on the milk from these animals, indicated that 29% of them had low levels of THC-COOH (THC-carboxylixc acid, which is a major metabolite for THC) in their urine.  This study indicates that the passive consumption of marijuana through milk products is a serious problem in this region where wild marijuana grows unrestricted, and that children are likely to be exposed more than adults.” 

The legal requirement for 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) content of HEMP is supposed to be 0.3 percent or less, yet from both anecdotal evidence and an ever-decreasing quality control management, one will find it difficult to ensure even basic health and safety issues are monitored, let alone acted upon.

One such issue and now after thought, is that the hemp industry has a lot of waste bi-product and finding ways to deal with it, apart from burning it (and all the attending concerns around that) is determining its suitability as fodder.

In 2013 a Washington State pig farmer thought he would experiment with his hobby hogs and see if Pot waste would change the flavour of his pork products. Thinking as many in the industry do now, that the waste from cannabis grows must be useful, he tried the experiment. Anecdotally, it was a ‘success’, his retailers declaring it better tasting.

However, John P. McNamara, a professor at Washington State University's Department of Animal Sciences, did not find the experiment amusing, nor should he.

"Of all the crazy things I've seen in my 37-plus years, this is the dumbest things I've ever seen in my life," McNamara said in order to introduce a drug or medicine to feed, that's being given to animals that make part of the food supply, the federal government must sign off on it after extensive review. He adds that research has shown that cannabis ingested can be transferhred onto tissues.

What of the pigs? Well, according to the producer, no real difference as ‘pigs just eat and sleep anyway’, though the manager noticed one of the more salty sows was calmer after feeding…Hmmm? Again, all anecdote, no data – yet that seems to be a key driver for policy making around this increasingly complex and far from benign product.

In a pod cast by  Aaron Moskowitz, Hemp advocate Hunter Buffington was interviewed on this complex Hemp issue.

The interview revealed some of those complexities and the current attempts to  

(if not overcome) negate them.  The interview confirmed the real need to ensure not only any feed potential of this substantial and growing bio-waste, but also determine any contamination of it, or in it. The imperative of ensuring that what is ‘fed into’ the human food chain is safe should not be understated, but it may well be if pro-cannabis advocates are in-charge of the scrutiny process. Any potential toxicity acquired by the growing environment, (i.e. soils, horticultural practices and/or pesticides) or from the plants own innate compound toxicities, need to be understood and guarded against.

Alongside these stringent safety protocols, clinical feed trials must also be conducted of the by-products being offered as fodder. Each product must be tested against each of the animal breeds it is going to be fed to, ensuring no further harms are done to the animal being fed, or to those further up the food chain.

Kansas State University are undertaking some studies to that end, with the following outcomes reported in part in the following,

While there is interest in the use of hemp for cattle feeds, there are questions about whether the feed can be used safely because of concerns about tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, intoxication and the presence of other bioactive cannabinoids. Kleinhenz noticed that most research was focused on humans, mice and swine, but not on cattle.

"This is surprising because cattle can readily utilize industrial hemp byproducts as they can digest cellulose plant materials in their rumens," Kleinhenz said.

"We observed that the acidic cannabinoids, such as CBDA and THCA, are more readily absorbed from the rumen than other non-acid cannabinoid forms, such as CBD and CBG," Kleinhenz said. "Now that we have found that some cannabinoids are readily absorbed from the rumen, the next steps are to study the tissue and milk residue udepletion profiles of these compounds after animal feeding experiments. The effects of cannabinoids on cattle are also unknown."  KSU News & Communication Services

Whilst Kansas State University were conducting their review another long promised study on the use of Hemp crop residue (an environmental concern in its own right) revealed what had been suspected 20 years earlier.  

Published in Nature – Scientific Reports Plasma concentrations of eleven cannabinoids in cattle following oral administration of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) (nih.gov)  uncovered the following,

From the "Discussion" section,

• Moreover, the impact of the rumen on the fate of oral cannabinoids requires further investigation. Rumen microbes could potentially degrade or metabolize cannabinoids causing alterations in the cannabinoids available for absorption. Merrick et al., reported the in vitro conversion of cannabidiol (CBD) to 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC) in simulated gastric fluid. Although these findings were not supported in vivo; there is still potential for rumen microbes to play a significant role in the conversion of fatty-acids through biohydrogenation.
• The results of the finding of this study have implications for IH (Industrial Hemp) as an agriculture commodity. In the short-term, these findings can be used to develop strategies for cattle accidently exposed to IH and hemp by-products, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has explicitly stated cannabinoids are considered adulterants in food production species. However, cattle and other ruminants are ideally suited to utilize IH and the byproducts of cannabinoid production from IH as a novel source of nutrition. 
• Understanding of plasma half-lives for cannabinoids will allow veterinarians to work with cattle producers to establish withdrawal intervals to ensure exposed cattle can enter the food supply. 
• Additionally, understanding of cannabinoid pharmacology is needed if IH and hemp byproducts are to be considered by the US FDA and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) for inclusion into animal diet.

On interrogating this research, one commentator also made the following remarks, which bear further consideration.

And of course, they need more research to answer the additional questions that they bring up.  They now need to "understand plasma half-lives for cannabinoids" and need an "understanding of cannabinoid pharmacology".  

The establishment of a "withdrawal" period is what I find really interesting and would be a challenge.  Basically, the cows would need a drug test before they can be sent to slaughter.  If such a protocol was established, I think that we all know what could happen; falsification of test results is a strong possibility because it is basically about the money, which always depends on speed to market.

What I also find especially troubling is that in the discussion session, the authors state that their findings can be used to develop strategies for cattle accidently exposed to IH and hemp by-products.  

The need to monitor this industry and the management of its growing waste products is imperative if the health and well-being of people, as well as animals, is a priority. The rush to market of cannabis by ‘voting for medicine’ initiatives is a staggering backward step for a so-called evidence-based scientifically anchored culture. 

If indeed, this bio-waste can be proven utterly safe and beneficial as animal feed, with absolutely no potential harms permitted, this may be one positive for an industry that has proven in past decades that salesmanship trumps science every time.

More thorough and robust research is needed at all levels and the tightening of regulations around ‘supplements’, of which there is currently little to none in the United States, Australia, and other lax jurisdictions. The time for ‘free pass’ on these untrailed or clinically untested products must end for the sake of community and animal well-being.

Further Reading

Swiss Cattle Banned from Eating Hemp https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-cows-banned-from-eating-grass/4385896

Plasma concentrations of eleven cannabinoids in cattle following oral administration of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa)

The results of the finding of this study have implications for IH (Industrial Hemp) as an agriculture commodity. In the short-term, these findings can be used to develop strategies for cattle accidently exposed to IH and hemp by-products, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has explicitly stated cannabinoids are considered adulterants in food production species. However, cattle and other ruminants are ideally suited to utilize IH and the by-products of cannabinoid production from IH as a novel source of nutrition. Understanding of plasma half-lives for cannabinoids will allow veterinarians to work with cattle producers to establish withdrawal intervals to ensure exposed cattle can enter the food supply. Additionally, understanding of cannabinoid pharmacology is needed if IH and hemp by-products are to be considered by the US FDA and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) for inclusion into animal diets. For complete research www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69768-4

F.D.A. Regulations on Food contains THC or CBD  

10. Is it legal, in interstate commerce, to sell a food (including any animal food or feed) to which THC or CBD has been added?

A. No. Under section 301(ll) of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(ll)], it is prohibited to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which has been added a substance which is an active ingredient in a drug product that has been approved under section 505 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. § 355], or a drug for which substantial clinical investigations have been instituted and for which the existence of such investigations has been made public. There are exceptions, including when the drug was marketed in food before the drug was approved or before the substantial clinical investigations involving the drug had been instituted or, in the case of animal feed, that the drug is a new animal drug approved for use in feed and used according to the approved labeling. However, based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that none of these is the case for THC or CBD. FDA has therefore concluded that it is a prohibited act to introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any food (including any animal food or feed) to which THC or CBD has been added. FDA is not aware of any evidence that would call into question these conclusions. Interested parties may present the agency with any evidence that they think has bearing on this issue. Our continuing review of information that has been submitted thus far has not caused us to change our conclusions.

FDA Regulation of Cannabis and Cannabis-Derived Products, Including Cannabidiol (CBD) | FDA

Dalgarno Institute Research Team