The cannabis plant and how it interacts with human biology are being studied at an increasing rate by scientists and health professionals around the world. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a cannabinoid that is a particularly popular focus for researchers due to its intoxicating properties.

Such research must be objective and fact-driven, with investigators avoiding any bias and not falling for the propaganda-driven trap of assuming that there is a one-size-fits-all THC dosage for all humans in all instances, or that there is a specific dosage range that should apply to all humans.

A team of researchers based in the United Kingdom and affiliated with various health and academic institutions recently conducted an examination focusing on THC dosages and “estimating thresholds for risk of cannabis use disorder.” The researchers’ findings were published in the journal Addiction.

The researchers used data from the CannTeen study, which is a “longitudinal observational study consisting of five assessments over a 12-month period” in London. The researchers converted 5 milligram dosages of THC into 1 unit increments.

“Participants were n = 65 adults aged 26–29 (46% female, 70.77% white ethnicity) and n = 85 adolescents aged 16–17 (56% female, 65.48% white ethnicity). All participants reported at least one use of cannabis during the 12-month study period.” the researchers wrote.

“Discrimination accuracy of weekly standard THC units on cannabis use disorder (CUD) was good, with area under the curve > 0.70 for all models. Optimal cut-offs for risk of any CUD (versus no CUD) were 8.26 units per week for adults and 6.04 units per week for adolescents. For risk of moderate/severe CUD (versus no CUD) optimal cut-offs were 13.44 units per week for adults and 6.45 units per week for adolescents.” the researchers found.

“Weekly cannabis consumption based on standard delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) units appears to show good discrimination accuracy of cannabis use disorder at different severities and in different age groups. Safer levels of cannabis use, defined by low weekly standard THC unit consumption, could be recommended in lower risk cannabis use guidelines.” the researchers concluded.

The research is limited in many ways, not the least of which being that the population for the research was limited to one metro area of the world. Not only does that limit the types of consumers that would be part of the research, but it also limits the types of cannabis products that those participants consume.

Adult-use cannabis is not legal in the United Kingdom, and regulated cannabis sales are not permitted in London. The products that people consume in the London metro area are presumably different from those in North America and other continents, as well as from what people consume in other parts of Europe.

Furthermore, human biology is a complex system. THC, in general, doesn’t affect everyone the same way. Some people have a naturally greater tolerance for THC than other people, and that tolerance level typically changes the more frequently a person consumes.

A major problematic factor in this area of research has historically hinged on what constitutes cannabis use disorder. Many researchers and cannabis opponents consider cannabis use disorder to simply involve frequent cannabis use, regardless of the impact that the use may or may not have on the person’s day-to-day life. That concept is often on display when a consumer is forced into a rehabilitation program for one reason or another, which is unfortunately common in jurisdictions that prohibit cannabis activity.

An anecdotal example that I often point to is my father, who was forced into rehab after being caught illegally distributing cannabis years ago. At the time, my father wasn’t even a consumer of cannabis, but criminal justice penalties were such that attending rehabilitation was mandatory for all cannabis convictions.

My father was automatically declared to suffer from cannabis use disorder, and at the start of every group rehab meeting he was forced to attend he had to stand up, announce his name, and declare that he was a ‘cannabis addict’ despite explaining over and over that he was not a cannabis consumer at the time, as evidenced by the lack of THC in his drug test results.

The results of the recent study conducted in the United Kingdom have been widely covered by mainstream media outlets, with many of them seemingly taking the position that the results of the study are the final answer on the subject. Such coverage does not include vital context that is necessary to put the researchers’ findings into the right perspective. The research is worthwhile and provides some suggestive parameters for consumers to consider, but the results are far from being the final answer on the subject.

These types of studies, along with the inevitable mainstream media coverage that follows, have real-world public policy consequences. Laws and regulations are often based on them without the proper considerations being made, including DUI laws and product THC content limits.

As countries around the world continue to work to modernize their cannabis policies, the cannabis community and industry must continue to serve as a counterbalance and to keep educating the public and lawmakers to help ensure that public policies are sensible.