Cited by 475Forensic Toxicology and Drug AnalysisCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchCrime, Illicit Activities, and Governance

Potency Trends of Δ 9 ‐THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Cannabis Preparations from 1993 to 2008*

Mehmedic, Zlatko, Chandra, Suman, Slade, Desmond, Denham, Heather, Foster, Susan, Patel, Amit S., Ross, Samir A., Khan, Ikhlas A. +1 more·2010·Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

The University of Mississippi has a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to carry out a variety of research activities dealing with cannabis, including the Potency Monitoring (PM) program, which provides analytical potency data on cannabis preparations confiscated in the United States. This report provides data on 46,211 samples seized and analyzed by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) during 1993-2008. The data showed an upward trend in the mean Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) content of all confiscated cannabis preparations, which increased from 3.4% in 1993 to 8.8% in 2008. Hashish potencies did not increase consistently during this period; however, the mean yearly potency varied from 2.5-9.2% (1993-2003) to 12.0-29.3% (2004-2008). Hash oil potencies also varied considerably during this period (16.8 ± 16.3%). The increase in cannabis preparation potency is mainly due to the increase in the potency of nondomestic versus domestic samples.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01441.x

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • As levels of THC in cannabis have altered over the past few decades, results from earlier studies could be underestimating the impact of the effects of cannabis on psychosis that exist today.

    “These studies have increased concern that as levels of THC in cannabis have altered over the past few decades (50)(51)(52), results from earlier studies could be underestimating the impact of the effects of cannabis on psychosis that exist today.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehmedic, Z., Chandra, S., Slade, D., Denham, H., Foster, S., Patel, A. S., Ross, S. A., Khan, I. A., & ElSohly, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
ElSohly, Mahmoud A.
Venue
Journal of Forensic Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-09
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
1209-1217
ISSN
  • 0022-1198 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-4029
OpenAlex
W2098582456
Cited by
475
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 25
FWCI
24.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (N01 DA 57746)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Forensic Toxicology and Drug Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance
Keywords
cannabis potency, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabinoids, hashish
MeSH terms
Cannabinoids, Cannabis, Flame Ionization, Plant Oils, Illicit Drugs, Dronabinol

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review