Safety Concerns for Addiction? to Cannabis?

Introduction

In an effort to help people see the relevance of the Addiction as Dissociation Model, Path of the Wounded Healer, and our qualitative academic education to life today, WHI is using the experience outlined in the Data section below as an example of how implicit bias hides in AI and the systems (language, society, culture, psychology, and implicit bias) they come from. It also shows the systems-level response to basic questions about “Drugs” like psychedelics (includes cannabis and CBD) that are really plants. Basic nuance is needed to interpret AI’s answers and we thought it would be fun to explore that further; however, nuance is required, therefore, we are providing some context for our readers, professionals, and professions to recognize just how systemic the bias towards addiction really is, how far off they are in their taxonomies and definitions, and where their implicit bias comes from; they do not know what dissociation is because they do not have addiction defined accurately. Once addiction is operationally defined as dissociation, we can have a fuller view of addiction as it stands in the pantheon of pathologies that “science” got wrong (e.g., abnormal response to an abnormal event).

Background to the Problem

To further demonstrate: 1) what they are addicted to, 2) how they are dependent upon it, and 3) why the system’s unconscious implicit bias is so ingrained and pervasive in its collective unconscious mind (deep dependent state) (and to demonstrate AI’s systemic bias), we are using the simple example of Googling something (see Data below).

Data

Googled: HHC flower cannabis. Now powered by AI, this outline was found:

“HHC flower cannabis: An overview. HHC flower refers to hemp buds that have been coated or infused with HHC (hexahydrocannabinol) extract. HHC is a cannabinoid that naturally occurs in cannabis plants in small amounts. However, for commercial purposes, it’s typically produced semi-synthetically, often by converting CBD (cannabidiol) through a process called hydrogenation. 

Effects of HHC flower: Users report that HHC flower produces psychoactive effects similar to Delta-9 THC, but generally milder. These effects may include a clear-headed high, euphoria, relaxation, and potential benefits like pain relief, reduced inflammation, and improved sleep. However, some individuals may experience side effects such as anxiety, paranoia, dry mouth, red eyes, dizziness, or an increased heart rate. 

Legality of HHC flower: The legal status of HHC is complex and varies between federal and state laws. Federally, hemp-derived HHC is considered legal under the 2018 Farm Bill, provided it contains no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. However, some states have banned or restricted HHC, while others have different regulations or unclear guidelines. For example, HHC is illegal in states like Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Utah, and Washington. In other states, HHC is legal as long as it adheres to the 0.3% Delta-9 THC limit and may be sold at licensed dispensaries, online, or in retail stores. It’s crucial to research and understand your local and state laws regarding HHC before purchasing or using HHC products. 

Safety concerns: While HHC is often marketed as a safer or legal alternative to Delta-9 THC, research on its long-term effects and safety is limited. Some potential risks and side effects are similar to those of THC, including the possibility of addiction, impairment, and adverse effects on brain development in individuals under 26. Additionally, unregulated HHC products may contain harmful byproducts from the synthesis process or be mislabeled. Therefore, it’s essential to choose reputable brands that provide third-party lab testing results (Certificate of Analysis or COA) to ensure the purity and potency of HHC flower products. Starting with a low dose and consuming HHC responsibly is also recommended. 

Where to buy HHC flower: Several companies offer HHC flower online, including Truemoola, Headshop.com, Exhale Wellness, and CannaBuddy. You can also find HHC products, including flower, in some licensed dispensaries or retail stores in areas where they are legally permitted. Always confirm the legality of HHC in your location before making a purchase.” 

Discussion

Since addiction is not accurately defined, this safety warning should apply not to the plant itself, but to the route of administration (e.g., smoking). If psychedelics have such a low addictive quality, as cited in our dissertation and other works (Cohen & Inaba, 2014; O’Brien, 2023a), then there is no reason to label them with a safety precaution… unless the warning itself is indicative of implicit bias. There is a greater risk of setting the ground on fire by smoking the plant than of becoming addicted to something that is not inherently addictive. Typically, the process/act of smoking is more addictive than the actual thing being smoked.

Did you know that the State of New York requires researchers to obtain a license– costing $700 total ($200 application fee + $500 fee following state approval)– in order to conduct cannabis (CBD and THC) research? Did you know that they require researchers to obtain pre-approval for their studies, even if they are being conducted independently? Does this mean that they going to start arresting researchers for conducting “illegal” research with legal plants– plants no more dangerous to the conscious mind than melatonin, yet considered “mind-altering drugs” by the unconscious mind? Or, to put it another way: can a plant truly be considered a “mind-altering drug” when the law cannot define food, and medicine cannot discern which mind is manifesting through psychedelics? For answers to such questions, we suggest discussing your needs with a healer instead of the field of psychology because they are clearly not ready for what recovery offers.

Is it not a major goal of “science” to achieve independence from variables? Is this what AI is giving us? What do lawyers know about science if they believe the medical model’s convenient interpretation of psychedelics (i.e., “no medical value”) while also supporting myths like “non-addictive opioids”, “mental illness due to a chemical imbalance”, and mandating “experimental” vaccines for citizens, children, and pregnant women as if they were more than flu shots?

Legally, because professions were created separate and not equal, our main argument is that the professions must be created separate and equal for justice to thrive, democracy to last, and humanity to evolve through healing (or die while trying). This necessary legal differentiation between “separate and equal” is dissociative and particularly true for law and government, ethics and morals, religion and spirituality, and medicine and psychology. Therefore, under constitutional law, if state and federal governments are not obligated to protect citizens when not “directly” responsible (as established in Castlerock v. Gonzales), then governmental approvals, tax requirements, legal mandates, religious exemptions, and laws that contradict common sense and common science are not inherently binding and need not be followed by ethical citizens and moral professionals. Equal as citizens, equal as professions– yet those who created the separation and inequality are the ones who will need to enact the necessary changes (e.g., awareness is as awareness does).

If the U.S. Constitution clearly mandates the “separation of church and state”, then why did states ever require religious exemptions? What politician or lawyer thought such exemptions were good ideas or even needed at all? What science does the law claim to follow if psychological science tell us that the law’s cognitive and moral development is stunted between the ages of 7 and 12? As trauma and dissociative specialists, we have enough evidence about human history to know why this is the case. We know that the youngest ones are really oldest because, when we look at intergenerational tactics and facts, we see that younger generations know more than the older ones ever could. They carry a knowledge and awareness that is inaccessible to older generations. The fact that these observations are still considered new to the field of psychology reveals exactly where psychology is at developmentally. Compared to the ancient profession of Healers (O’Brien, 2023a; O’Brien, 2024; O’Brien, 2025), the field psychology had to sell its soul to be involved in the law’s system of dependence and abuse, just as their parents did so they did not have to pay for them anymore. Why else would an Equal Rights Amendment, introduced in 1923, only be passed a century later in 2024? Why must one apply for a marriage license? Why would religious exemptions even be necessary for ethical citizens?

Why does the field of psychology need medical oversight and approval if the physical body is the unconscious? Why do citizens need more laws if they already have morals? The science of moral development matters and America’s History is her pathology. How can the law honestly declare a “war on drugs” when only Congress has the constitutional authority to declare acts of war? What was the last war that Congress voted prior to its declaration? If the readers don’t know, then maybe our answer as to why the field of psychology does not know the definition of addiction is accurately captured in the Machiavellian quote, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And now, combining the sciences of dissociation, psychedelics, memory, meditation, and philosophy, science has demonstrated (O’Brien, 2023b) beyond reasonable doubt that these “drugs” are really healing plants that have medical value; and yet, the field of psychology is required to follow what the medical and legal scholars tell them is right and wrong. Why the field of psychology did not question that double standard from the beginning is the same reason why she has not identified the abusive tactics (e.g., gaslighting) in the DSM and in political and social hierarchy; it is also why she remains in this generational reenactment of the abuse she suffered at the hands of her grandparents. Until the field of psychology has addiction accurately defined, she cannot and will not know who she is because she has nowhere to go.

Did you know that cannabis (as a psychedelic) potentially helps increase alpha waves in the brain, which means that people who are getting “high” may be getting “even” (alpha-wave wise) if their baseline alpha range is lower due to unresolved trauma? This is measurable– depending on variables, which are defined by what people do with the things that happened to them, as well as the things that didn’t happen to them or for them. When they discovered the endocannabinoid system in 2012, it forced a reckoning: they had to stop telling addicts that cannabis is a destructive drug and could not longer deny its medical value. And yet, the same voices telling us to “follow the science” are also asking us to follow someone else’s interpretation of it. And if that is what “follow the science” means, then what they truly need Moral-Ethics to level the professional playing field. Because if certain professions are thinking and behaving like traumatized 7 year-olds, and psychology is the very field tasked with identifying and diagnosing such behaviors yet fails to even recognize them, then perhaps it is time for a new profession to emerge and remind our fellow shortsighted citizens that the price of freedom is paid in blood, not money. No one can escape what they have and have not done. A war on a drug is a war on citizens, and the governed not only sanctioned it, but benefited from it and continue to perpetuate misinformation about what these plants are, who can use them to heal, and what it means to mislabel a drug as a plant, a conditional disease as fixed, or any expression of moral value as wrong. It is a sad state of affairs when the Department of Education has been overtaken by the very disease that they created.

To put all of this another way: does the reader realize that a lawyer holds the title of “Doctor of Jurisprudence” in matters of justice? And yet, have you ever heard a lawyer refer to themselves as a doctor? Why not?

The application of intellectual justice is what recovery community seeks after being forced to “follow the science”, imprisoned for using healing plants, and coerced into taking experimental drugs. After a war was declared on a drug without congressional approval (noting that Congress has not formally approved a war since WWII). After being told psychedelics have no medical value, while the pharmaceutical industry sold so-called “non-addictive” opioids. After these same institutions failed to apply their own ethical standards internally (HERE), created professions that were separate but not equal (Brown v. Board of Education), revoked religious exemptions for parents– exemptions that were never constitutionally required to begin with. This same system put traumatized children on the stand to testify against their own parents and, protected by constitutional precedent (Castle Rock v. Gonzales), has avoided liability for any of it. So, if there is truly a doctor of justice in the house, can they please tell us all: what justice is owed to those who were punished for listening to their moral conscious rather than the state-sanctioned “science”? And if a professional were to take the most recent 2025 state-mandated child abuse reporter training, would they be required to report a parent who was raising, treating, or abusing their children in the same ways that the state has treated its own citizens?

Conclusion

Let your conclusions be whatever you need them to be– but here are AI’s conclusions (generated in response to an implicit bias analysis request I made after writing the above). These may help readers become more aware of how deeply problematic it is that addiction has never been operationally defined by the very professions that coined and enforced these terms– a failure that continues to be detrimental to human growth and healing.

“The provided text about HHC flower, while appearing to be an overview, contains several implicit biases and areas where information might be framed in a particular way. Here’s a breakdown:

1. ‘Milder’ Effects and Comparison to Delta-9 THC:

• Bias: The text repeatedly states that HHC’s psychoactive effects are ‘similar to Delta-9 THC, but generally milder.’ While some users may report this, framing it as ‘milder’ can create an implicit bias towards HHC as a ‘safer’ or ‘less intense’ alternative, potentially downplaying its psychoactive properties and risks for individuals seeking a less potent high.
• Missing Nuance: The text also states that ‘some individuals may experience side effects such as anxiety, paranoia, dry mouth, red eyes, dizziness, or an increased heart rate,’ which are typical cannabis side effects, even with Delta-9 THC. The emphasis on ‘milder’ without sufficient scientific backing can be misleading, especially given the limited research on HHC. Research suggests that the two epimers of HHC (9R-HHC and 9S-HHC) have different potencies, and the ratio in products can vary, leading to inconsistent effects.

2. Focus on ‘Legal’ Status and Marketing:

• Bias: The text highlights HHC’s federal legality under the 2018 Farm Bill, provided it contains no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, and refers to it as often ‘marketed as a safer or legal alternative to Delta-9 THC.’ This framing, while factual in terms of current legal loopholes, implicitly promotes HHC as a legitimate and accessible alternative to regulated cannabis, rather than emphasizing the potential risks associated with an unregulated market.
• Implication: This can lead consumers to believe HHC is inherently safer or more legitimate simply because it is ‘legal’ in many places, without fully understanding the lack of comprehensive regulation and oversight. The term ‘legal high’ (as seen in search results) can contribute to this perception.

3. Limited Research and ‘Safer’ Perception:

• Bias: The text acknowledges, ‘research on its long-term effects and safety is limited.’ However, immediately following this, it discusses ‘potential benefits like pain relief, reduced inflammation, and improved sleep’ based on user reports. While user reports can be valuable, presenting them alongside the admission of limited research without clearly differentiating between anecdotal evidence and scientific consensus can create an implicit bias towards positive outcomes.
• Lack of Cautionary Tone: The overall tone, while mentioning safety concerns, doesn’t fully convey the significant lack of robust scientific data on HHC. The market is moving faster than the science, and the text, by detailing effects and where to buy, contributes to the normalization of HHC consumption despite the scientific gaps.

4. Endorsement of Specific Brands/Retailers:

• Bias: The inclusion of specific company names like ‘Truemoola, Headshop.com, Exhale Wellness, and CannaBuddy’ under ‘Where to buy HHC flower’ creates an implicit endorsement or legitimization of these particular businesses.
• Conflict of Interest/Commercial Bias: This could be seen as a form of commercial bias, as it provides free advertising for these companies. It also suggests that these are reliable sources without providing criteria for vetting or warning about potential issues with specific vendors in an unregulated market.

5. Understated Risks of Unregulated Products:

• Bias: While the text mentions ‘unregulated HHC products may contain harmful byproducts from the synthesis process or be mislabeled,’ the overall emphasis remains on the ‘clear-headed high, euphoria, relaxation’ and availability. The potential for harmful contaminants or inaccurate labeling in an unregulated market is a serious concern that could be more prominently highlighted to ensure consumer safety. The instruction to ‘choose reputable brands that provide third-party lab testing results’ places the onus entirely on the consumer in a market where such claims may be difficult to verify independently.

In summary, the implicit biases in this text lean towards promoting HHC as an accessible and relatively safe alternative to Delta-9 THC, despite acknowledging limited research and the unregulated nature of the market. The language tends to soften potential risks and emphasize user-reported benefits, potentially influencing consumer perception more positively than a strictly scientific overview might.”

Summary

To come to terms with the fact that addiction is not a disease but dissociative effect — and that traumatology (e.g., science) has demonstrated dissociation to be a normal response to a normal event is to begin to see the truth that lies within. Who is labeling what as which can now be named, identified, and witnessed. What is not normal is our collective inability to heal and not identify (instead of compare). To rationalize, justify, or excuse human behavior as an inability, disorder, or abnormal is to stand directly in the way of true healing– and that is what is truly sick. Because the field of psychology has yet to scientifically codify the pathology of abusers, we have done our best to offer a solution for both the victims and the perpetrators of the war on drugs, poverty, sanity, and healing (O’Brien, 2025). As for everyone else: the refusal to see that addiction is not a disease is the inconvenient truth that one will have to come to terms with when the time is right. But what the science says and what the science shows is usually two different things. This is how we can know what is a lie and what is the truth.

The fact that AI also shows people where they can buy these non-dangerous “drugs” only adds to the irony– everything the consumer needs to know is right there, but the meaning behind the words always tells the real story that we need to hear.

Future Directions

“Take it to the medicine” is the motto of the Wounded Healers Institute; but just like America, we are all as lost as we are found.

For more on our work and cause, consider signing up for our newsletter, following our work at woundedhealersinstitute.org, or donating to our cause HERE.

References

O’Brien, A. (2023a). Addiction as Trauma-Related Dissociation: A Phenomenological Investigation of the Addictive State. International University of Graduate Studies. (Dissertation). Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/

O’Brien, A. (2023b). Memory Reconsolidation in Psychedelics Therapy. In Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/courses/addiction-as-dissociation-model-course/

O’Brien, A. (2023c). Path of the Wounded Healer: A Dissociative-Focused Phase Model for Normative and Pathological States of Consciousness: Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2024a). Healer and Healing: The re-education of the healer and healing professions as an advocation. Re-educational and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2024e). Path of the Wounded Healers for Thrivers: Perfectionism, Altruism, and Ambition Addictions; Re-education and training manual for Abusers, Activists, Batterers, Bullies, Enablers, Killers, Narcissists, Offenders, Parents, Perpetrators, and Warriors. Re-Education and Training Manual and Guide. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/

O’Brien, A. (2025). American Made Addiction Recovery: a healer’s journey through professional recovery. Albany, NY: Wounded Healers Institute. Retrieved at woundedhealersinstitute.org/