While the understanding of the relationship of THC to CBD is still in its infancy, research-wise, I can stand by the statement that the medical community at large prefers to recommend dosing based on the lowest percentage of THC needed in order to achieve therapeutic benefit. The reason? The psychoactive action of THC still appears to be the most dangerous thing about cannabis. It's incredibly difficult to find reliable data on this, because experience of both prescribers and users has outpaced research. For someone just beginning a medical marijuana regimen, assuming that they will have low tolerance is a pretty safe bet - so the THC content would want to head towards less than 10%. For someone with greater tolerance, aiming between 10-20% can be recommended. A high-tolerance (generally long-term) user might need more than 20% in order to achieve benefits. And hopefully, their tolerance will give them some insulation against the potentially anxiety- and psychosis- inducing effects of high THC.This is not necessarily true. Some people who use cannabis for medical reasons need high THC. Others need lower THC and high levels of other cannabinoids. The levels of cannabinoids in medical marijuana are not based on whether or not someone gets high, but rather how well those cannabinoids act together to alleviate symptoms of typical sufferers of a given disease or disorder. The feeling of getting high is usually short lived compared to the relief provided and is typically mild or non-existent as tolerance increases.
For context, the University of Mississippi's potency monitoring program reports that in 1993 the average THC content (of a cross-sample, not just medical samples) was 3.4%. By 2012 that number had moved up to 12.3%. Those in search of high-potency marijuana, either for sale or use, medical or non, can now find strains upwards of 30% on the market (from Is Pot Getting More Potent?, PBS news, 4/1014.)
On the other hand, some researchers have begun to emphasize that high THC content allows for a more immediate impact, resulting in better self-regulation by the user. It is possible for someone using low-THC to end up consuming more of the drug than they would have, simply because they do not feel the effects as soon.
I didn't say there was; merely that there was a link, as you've stated well here:There is no evidence that THC causes schizophrenia.
Which is the same principle behind cannabis triggering mania in bi-polar individuals, as well. What I think you are wrong on is specifically emphasizing the genetic predisposition aspect - as there still isn't agreement over whether that is a definitive or necessary factor in developing schizophrenia. Or, more simply put - there might be something already in your brain that makes schizophrenia likely, and then any psychoactive agent (including THC) can prompt a schizophrenic event. No-one is sure what that something in the brain is, and there aren't hard numbers on how likely or not this occurrence would be.Rather, there is a correlation of cannabis use, or the use of psychedelics, as a catalyst to full-blown schizophrenia.
I'm happy to be wrong on this, though - can you cite something specifically linking psychedelics to schizophrenia in those with familial history?
Ultimately, I appreciate both your points, the gist being - it's easy to be alarmist about the dangers of cannabis. It was not my intention to skew any of the article in that direction.