Nobody uses THC intravenously.
Unless they’re being administered controlled amounts in a manner that reduces variability of absorption in a research environment.
They reduced variability at the expense of real-life applicability of their results - they're like the guy who lost his wallet on Second Street but is looking for it on Third Street because the light is better there.
Over 2 experimental sessions, participants (N=22) were administered 2.5mg IV THC
Even aside from the unrealistic route of administration, how does this dose compares to the amount a recreational user of strong weed would get? Rats get cancer from artificial sweetener when fed the equivalent of a million cans of diet soda - should we worry?
No response to this point?
Following THC, there was a significant increase in self-rated and observer-rated positive psychotic symptoms which were highly correlated (r=0.62, p=0.001).
In research terminology, "significant" means only statistically distinguishable from no effect - it says nothing about the magnitude of the effect.
No response to this point?
Phenomena centered on de-synchronisation of self-agency (ipseity disturbance) and hypersalience/paranoia.
While these may technically fall under the general heading of "psychotic," a smoker hiding under the bed or examining his fingers in wonder ("ipseity disturbance") is nothing you or I need to fear.
Uhuh. That’s what the hippytards were telling my dazed and confuzed friends back in the 70’s too.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Having observed the wreckage of the lives of those who believed that bullshyte and proceeded to self-medicate themselves into oblivion -— NO SALE.
Did they self-medicate themselves into a fear-worthy sort of psychosis? If not, your observations have no bearing on the research you cited.
NO SALE.