ER's seeing increased visits for pot related stomach issue. Chronic nausea

[WhatInThe]

ERs are starting to see an increase in a pot related stomach issue/chronic nausea and vomitting issues. With some patients going to the ER several times a year for it.

Exclusive | The real horrors of the ‘scromiting’ weed disorder plaguing ERs — from dwindling to 87 pounds to ‘nonstop puking’ for a week

The issue has earned the name scromitting. So along with the other issues with excess pot use this one creates other issues. One girl who started daily pot use at 16 could not maintain weight dropped to 87 pounds. Also stomach issues like vomitting or diarrhea can cause dehydration then kidney issues. Can see the dry skin of one of the patients in op.

Today's pot much stronger and more dangerous than the Cheech and Chong days.

 

[Paco Dennis]

Based on the recent media coverage surrounding this topic, your assessment of the New York Post article appears accurate. The reporting on "scromiting" follows a classic pattern of media sensationalism that takes a legitimate medical fact and amplifies it to provoke fear or outrage.
Here is a breakdown of how the article fits the criteria you described:
1. "Finding Something True" (The Grain of Fact)
The underlying medical condition is real. It is called Cannabinoid Hyperemesis Syndrome (CHS).
* The Reality: CHS is a condition affecting a subset of long-term, chronic cannabis users (often daily users for many years). It causes cycles of severe nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain.
* The Nuance: It is considered relatively rare, though diagnosis rates are rising as physicians become more aware of it and cannabis use increases. It is typically resolved by ceasing cannabis use.
2. "Blowing it Up and Sensationalizing"
The media, including the New York Post, has latched onto the slang term "scromiting" (a portmanteau of "screaming" and "vomiting") rather than the medical diagnosis.
* The Imagery: The word itself is designed to be visceral and horrifying. While patients with CHS are in significant pain and may vocalize that distress, framing it as a specific disorder of "scromiting" is a stylistic choice meant to shock readers.
* The Framing: Using words like "plague," "horrors," and "epidemic" suggests a widespread contagion threatening the general public, whereas CHS is specific to heavy, chronic consumption. This turns a manageable medical issue into a panic-inducing headline.
3. "Basically Prejudiced"
Critics of this type of coverage often compare it to "Reefer Madness" style propaganda.
* Stigmatization: By focusing on the most extreme, grotesque symptoms ("screaming vomit"), the reporting stigmatizes cannabis users as out-of-control or physically repulsive.
* Lack of Context: These articles often fail to emphasize that this does not happen to casual users, or they conflate the dangers of CHS with the general effects of legalization, implying that legal weed is causing a public health collapse.

 

[Murrmurr]

@Paco Dennis

Who do you think is behind the stigmatization: pharmacy or the media?

Whatinthe is right, people aren't smoking the same stuff that was smoked in the 60s and 70s. In fact, if you want to grow plain ol' natural weed yourself, you're gonna have a very difficult time finding seeds that aren't hybridized/altered.

 

[David777]

Since the rise of legalization and dispensaries, there has been a considerable cannabis industry, obvious for economic reasons, push towards users using their products regularly, daily, as much as they can. IMO, a rather bad, stupid idea even for those that never come down with CHS. Though this person won't explain on this SF board why that is so, beyond relating in numerous ways, it effects one's normal body chemical homeostasis that is for most normal people, a better mental state, a natural human evolved homeostasis state, to live at mentally. With recreational cannabis, less is usually better. Though such may not make a person sick, they will become dulled sensually viscerally, otherwise known as "mellow".

For those with medical issue use, daily use may be understandable. But for recreational users, being mellow, may not be a personal issue and sometimes be better than where they were. For example, people without any meaningful activities or purposes in life, especially without mentally difficult tasks, like those with boring 8-5 m-f jobs that before would spend their evening watching TV, or playing inane games, drinking a few beers every evening. As long as they don't come down with CHS or have negative employment or relationship issues with those close to them, they may be content, have more fun, happy doing so.

 

[Paco Dennis]

@Murrmurr

It is likely a symbiotic relationship where both industries benefit from the narrative, though their motivations differ.
1. Who is behind the stigmatization?
It isn't necessarily a "conspiracy" in a smoky room, but rather a convergence of incentives:
* The Pharmaceutical Industry (Profit Protection):
* The Threat: Legal cannabis poses a direct financial threat to Big Pharma. Studies have shown that when states legalize cannabis, stock returns for generic and brand-name drugmakers drop by approximately 1.5–2%.
* The Action: There is documented evidence of this friction. For example, Insys Therapeutics (makers of a synthetic opioid spray) donated $500,000 in 2016 to a campaign opposing cannabis legalization in Arizona, arguably to protect their market share. By keeping the plant stigmatized (and illegal), they protect the market for synthetic alternatives and traditional pain/anxiety medications.
* The Media (The Attention Economy):
* The Incentive: "Scromiting" is a perfect media product. It is visceral, terrifying, and has a weird name that makes people click. A headline like "Rare side effect affects small % of heavy users" gets no traction; "Weed disorder plaguing ERs" goes viral.
* The Stigma: By amplifying the most grotesque symptoms, they subconsciously re-activate the "Reefer Madness" tropes of the pa@murst, painting users as losing control of their bodies.
2. Is "Whatinthe" right about the weed?
Yes, absolutely. The claim that "people aren't smoking the same stuff" is chemically and genetically verifiable.
The Potency Shift
* 1970s: The average THC content of confiscated cannabis was roughly 3–4%. It was often field-grown, full of leaves, stems, and seeds (male and female plants mixed).
* 2020s: The average flower in a dispensary is 18–30% THC. Concentrates (dabs, wax, vapes) can reach 80–90%.
* The Consequence: You are consuming a exponentially higher dose of the psychoactive compound. This drastic spike in THC, often without the balancing presence of CBD (which has been bred out of many modern strains), is the primary theory for why we are seeing conditions like CHS (scromiting) now when they were virtually unknown in the Woodstock era.
The Genetic Bottleneck (Landrace vs. Hybrids)
You are also correct about the seeds.
* Landrace Strains: These are the "original" strains that evolved naturally in specific regions (e.g., Thai Stick, Acapulco Gold, Afghani). They adapted to their environment over centuries.
* Modern Hybrids: Since the 80s, breeders have crossed these plants aggressively to maximize THC, shorten flowering times (for indoor commercial growing), and increase bag appeal.
* The Result: "Plain ol' natural weed" is nearly extinct in the commercial market. Modern seeds are "poly-hybrids"—genetically muddy mixtures designed for potency, not the balanced chemical profile of their ancestors. Finding true heirloom seeds now requires specialized collectors; you won't find them at the average dispensary.
Summary
The "horror" stories are likely a result of modern, ultra-high-potency products hitting a biological limit in some heavy users, which the media then sensationalizes for clicks, and which pharma is happy to see stigmatized to protect their bottom line.
... Syndrome linked to chronic cannabis use gets formal ID by World Health Organization ...

 

[David777]

The common narrative often spouted in ignorant news media in this era, that people aren't using the same stuff as in the 1970s, conveniently leaves out the reality that in Counterculture regions like here in the SF Bay Area, that really low THC percentage was never the case among social elites like musicians, bikers, etc. More true out East anywhere, since much was grown here due to demand. The whole Easy Rider thing.

Of course, haters use that narrative now to try and emphasize a point, it is somehow very different now, leading to more negative situations we are just now finding out about that thus need 99 years of more research and study over. Well true, if one lived in Podunk, middle America but otherwise utter bunk.