Jump to content
Johnthecaregiver

High Cbd/low Thc

Recommended Posts

I grow "CBD Critical Cure," a low THC/ high CBD strain, and I like it a lot for pain. I have FM, OA, thyroiditis, and liver disease. The only drawback seems to be that it makes me a little sleepy, so I use scant amounts (usually in edibiles) throughout the day, and 3 hits or so on my vaporizer before bed. I find that I sleep much better.

 

I have a patient who uses the CBD CC specifically for sleep issues, and another that uses it for migranes. They both love it. Again, though, it's a "sleepy" blend, so it can be hard to function if you use too much. A little bit goes a long way with this strain.

 

For more spunk, Crimera Blue has an uppity high, but it does get you high, unlike the CBD CC. It works very well on pain, but has a higher THC, and more energy.

 

I think a common peice of advice is that you need to find what works best for you. A good way to start would be, in my opinion, to get a caregiver who has various strains to start with. Then, when you know more about the process, you can begin to grow strains that work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or sorry for big texts but in case html sux or whatever... Myths & Realities 

 

 

by David P. West, Ph.D.

 

for the North American Industrial Hemp Council

 

 

About the Author: Dr. West holds a Ph.D. in Plant Breeding from the University of Minnesota and has spent 18 years as a commercial corn breeder. Since 1993 he has served as an advisor to the emerging hemp industry regarding industrial hemp germplasm. His work, "Fiber Wars: the Extinction of Kentucky Hemp" (1994), a pioneering discussion of the functional difference between hemp and marijuana, and his other writings on hemp and agriculture are available online (CLICK HERE).

 

Dr. West can be contacted by email at:

 

davewest@pressenter.com

 

The complete text of this report is available on the NAIHC website.

 

This report is the first in a series of white papers produced by:

 

North American Industrial Hemp Council

 

Post Office Box 259329

 

Madison, Wisconsin 53725-9329

 

Tel: (608) 835-0428

 

Email: sholtea@wheel.datcp.state.wi.us

 

website: www.naihc.org

 

 

" 1998 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HEMP COUNCIL, INC.

 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

 

 

 

Hemp and Marijuana

 

Myths & Realities

 

Abstract

 

Surely no member of the vegetable kingdom has ever been more misunderstood than hemp. For too many years, emotion-not reason-has guided our policy toward this crop. And nowhere have emotions run hotter than in the debate over the distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana. This paper is intended to inform that debate by offering scientific evidence, so that farmers, policymakers, manufacturers, and the general public can distinguish between myth and reality. 

 

Botanically, the genus Cannabis is composed of several variants. Although there has been a long-standing debate among taxonomists about how to classify these variants into species, applied plant breeders generally embrace a biochemical method to classify variants along utilitarian lines.Cannabis is the only plant genus that contains the unique class of molecular compounds called cannabinoids. Many cannabinoids have been identified, but two preponderate: THC, which is the psychoactive ingredient of Cannabis, and CBD, which is an antipsychoactive ingredient.One type of Cannabis is high in the psychoactive cannabinoid, THC, and low in the antipsychoactive cannabinoid, CBD. This type is popularly known as marijuana. Another type is high in CBD and low in THC. Variants of this type are called industrial hemp. 

 

In the United States, the debate about the relationship between hemp and marijuana has been diminished by the dissemination of many statements that have little scientific support. This report examines in detail ten of the most pervasive and pernicious of these myths. 

 

Myth: United States law has always treated hemp and marijuana the same.

 

Reality: The history of federal drug laws clearly shows that at one time the U.S. government understood and accepted the distinction between hemp and marijuana. 

 

Myth: Smoking industrial hemp gets a person high.

 

Reality: The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one could get high from smoking it. Moreover, hemp contains a relatively high percentage of another cannabinoid, CBD, that actually blocks the marijuana high. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana; it could be called "antimarijuana." 

 

Myth: Even though THC levels are low in hemp, the THC can be extracted and concentrated to produce a powerful drug.

 

Reality: Extracting THC from industrial hemp and further refining it to eliminate the preponderance of CBD would require such an expensive, hazardous, and time-consuming process that it is extremely unlikely anyone would ever attempt it, rather than simply obtaining high-THC marijuana instead.

 

Myth: Hemp fields would be used to hide marijuana plants.

 

Reality: Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Moreover, it is harvested at a different time than marijuana. Finally, cross-pollination between hemp plants and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plant.

 

Myth: Legalizing hemp while continuing the prohibition on marijuana would burden local police forces.

 

Reality: In countries where hemp is grown as an agricultural crop, the police have experienced no such burdens. 

 

Myth: Feral hemp must be eradicated because it can be sold as marijuana.

 

Reality: Feral hemp, or ditchweed, is a remnant of the hemp once grown on more than 400,000 acres by U.S. farmers. It contains extremely low levels of THC, as low as .05 percent. It has no drug value, but does offer important environmental benefits as a nesting habitat for birds. About 99 percent of the "marijuana" being eradicated by the federal government-at great public expense-is this harmless ditchweed. Might it be that the drug enforcement agencies want to convince us that ditchweed is hemp in order to protect their large eradication budgets? 

 

Myth: Those who want to legalize hemp are actually seeking a backdoor way to legalize marijuana.

 

Reality: It is true that many of the first hemp stores were started by industrial-hemp advocates who were also in favor of legalizing marijuana. However, as the hemp industry has matured, it has come to be dominated by those who see hemp as the agricultural and industrial crop that it is, and see hemp legalization as a different issue than marijuana legalization. In any case, should we oppose a very good idea simply because some of those who support it also support other ideas with which we disagree? 

 

Myth: Hemp oil is a source of THC.

 

Reality: Hemp oil is an increasingly popular product, used for an expanding variety of purposes. The washed hemp seed contains no THC at all. The tiny amounts of THC contained in industrial hemp are in the glands of the plant itself. Sometimes, in the manufacturing process, some THC- and CBD-containing resin sticks to the seed, resulting in traces of THC in the oil that is produced. The concentration of these cannabinoids in the oil is infinitesimal. No one can get high from using hemp oil. 

 

Myth: Legalizing hemp would send the wrong message to children.

 

Reality: It is the current refusal of the drug enforcement agencies to distinguish between an agricultural crop and a drug crop that is sending the wrong message to children. 

 

Myth: Hemp is not economically viable, and should therefore be outlawed.

 

Reality: The market for hemp products is growing rapidly. But even if it were not, when has a crop ever been outlawed simply because government agencies thought it would be unprofitable to grow?

 

 

Hemp and Marijuana

 

Myths & Realities

 

A Botanical and Biochemical Introduction 

 

Hemp. Has there ever been a plant so fraught with confusion and controversy? The word itself carries a confusing history. "Hemp" was for medieval Europeans a generic term used to describe any fiber [1]. With European expansion, fiber plants encountered during exploration were commonly called "hemp." Thus we have a bewildering variety of plants that carry the name hemp: Manila hemp (abacá, Musa textilis), sisal hemp (Agave sisalana), Mauritius hemp (Furcraea gigantea), New Zealand hemp (Phormium tenax), Sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea), Indian hemp (jute, Corchorus capsularisor C. clitorus), Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), bow-string hemp (Sansevieria cylindrica) [2]. 

 

This botanical confusion was compounded by the introduction of a new word to describe hemp-marihuana (now commonly written "marijuana"). The word was first coined in the 1890s, but was adopted by the Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s to describe all forms ofCannabis and to this day U.S. drug enforcement agencies continue to call the plant marijuana without regard to botanical distinctions. Indeed, a recent conference held in Jefferson City, Missouri and sponsored by Drug Watch International and the Drug Enforcement Administration was entitled, "Marijuana: Myths, Concerns, Facts"-yet much of the discussion concerned industrial hemp and the legal products made from it. 

 

The conflation of the word "marijuana" and the word "hemp" has placed a heavy burden on public policymakers. Many believe that by legalizing hemp they are legalizing marijuana. Yet in more than two dozen other countries, governments have accepted the distinction between the two types of Cannabis and, while continuing to penalize the growing of marijuana, have legalized the growing of industrial hemp. The U.S. government remains unconvinced. 

 

To understand the difference between hemp and marijuana, let's begin with two botanical analogies: field corn and sweet corn; breadseed poppies and opium poppies. 

 

Field Corn and Sweet Corn

 

For crops less encumbered by polemic than hemp is, functional distinctions among varieties are commonly recognized. Consider the case of field corn and sweet corn. The untrained observer cannot tell the different varieties apart just by looking, Both belong to the genus Zea mays. But if a grocer attempted a substitution, he would hear complaints. Your average consumer will recognize the difference. And when sweet corn is planted too near field corn, the resulting cross-pollination reduces the sweetness of the former. Companies like Green Giant that grow huge acreages of sweet corn for canning go to great lengths to ensure that an adequate distance separates their fields from corn destined for the grain elevator, or they grow the different varieties at different times. Either way, pollen carrying the dominant gene for starch synthesis is kept clear of cornsilks borne on plants of the recessive (sweet) variety. 

 

Commercial producers of planting seed of either variety are very careful to preserve the genetic integrity of their lines from contamination by other varieties. Their genetic resources are assemblages of optimized characteristics-yield, disease resistance, maturity-created through substantial research investment. Breeders of these crops rigorously ensure that their breeding stocks do not become contaminated by the other type, as this would result in a serious decline in the quality factors each tries to enhance. 

 

This botanical distinction is reflected even in the academic disciplines that deal with corn. Go to a midwestern land grant university's agriculture college and ask to speak to a plant breeder about sweet corn and you will be sent to the horticulture department; for field corn you will be directed to the agronomy department. 

 

A similar situation exists with respect to poppies, the popular garden flower of which there are dozens of variants. Recently the U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration has been cracking down on one specific poppy variety grown in backyards for many years, because it says that opium can be extracted from it. Yet the DEA still considers it legal for gardeners to continue to cultivate the many other varieties of Papaver somniferum, even though these are not botanically distinct from the poppy variety that has been outlawed. In similar fashion, the so-called "breadseed poppy" is also a member of the same species, yet the Controlled Substances Act specifically sets aside the poppy seed because of the culinary market [3].

 

With corn and poppies, we can understand the distinctions among varieties and strains. Until recently, as we shall see, the federal government also recognized the distinctions among the different varieties of Cannabis. 

 

Now let's move from analogy to the real thing by examining in more detail the genus Cannabis. 

 

The Genus Cannabis: Taxonomy and Biochemistry

 

Scientists who were the first to study the genusCannabis clearly discerned different species. The father of plant taxonomy, Linnaeus, officially designated the Cannabis genus in 1753 when he founded the binomial system of botanical nomenclature still used today [4]. Linnaeus added the "sativa" appellation (literally, "sown" or "cultivated," i.e., used in agriculture), indicating the utilitarian nature of the plant. Since his time numerous attempts have been made for a coherent taxonomy of Cannabis. Species designations have come and gone [5].

 

In 1889, botanist and plant explorer George Watt wrote about the distinction between types ofCannabis: "A few plants such as the potato, tomato, poppy and hemp seem to have the power of growing with equal luxuriance under almost any climatic condition, changing or modifying some important function as if to adapt themselves to the altered circumstance. As remarked, hemp is perhaps the most notable example of this; hence, it produces a valuable fibre in Europe, while showing little or no tendency to produce the narcotic principle which in Asia constitutes its chief value."[6]

 

Dr. Andrew Wright, an agronomist with the University of Wisconsin's Agriculture Experiment Station and steward of the Wisconsin hemp industry during the first half of the twentieth century, wrote in 1918, "There are three fairly distinct types of hemp: that grown for fiber, that for birdseed and oil, and that for drugs." [7]

 

Although these early analysts discerned clear differences among hemp types, taxonomists have had a difficult problem in deciding how to reflect those differences [8]. 

 

The key Cannabis species problem derives from the fact that there is no convenient species barrier between the varying types that would allow us to draw a clear line between them. In taxonomy, often the delineating line between species is that they cannot cross-breed. But disparate types of Cannabis can indeed produce fertile offspring, not sexually dysfunctional "mules." 

 

Consequently, a debate has raged within botanical circles as to how many species the genus contains. At this time botanists generally recognize a unique family of plants they call "Cannabaceae," under which are classified the genus Cannabis and its closest botanical relative,Humulus, which contains the beer flavoring, hops[9]. The prevailing opinion currently recognizes three species: C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis[10] "Industrial" types fall exclusively within C. sativa, although all Cannabis plants contain stem fiber and can have multiple uses in primitive societies where they are indigenous.

 

Recent analytical advances are leading many scientists to believe that a more accurate and satisfying way to differentiate the different forms of Cannabis would be by their biochemical composition. 

 

Cannabis is the only plant genus in which can be found the unique class of molecules known as cannabinoids. Cannabis produces two major cannabinoids-THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol), and several other minor cannabinoid compounds. 

 

THC is responsible for the psychoactive effect[11]. That was demonstrated conclusively in the 1960s. CBD, on the other hand, has recently been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system. 

 

Cannabis strains of the type used for industrial purposes have relatively high levels of CBD versus THC. Drug strains are high in THC and low to intermediate in CBD [12]. Smoking hemp, high in CBD and very low in THC, actually has the effect of preventing the marijuana high [13].Even when the amount of THC in a sample is as high as 2 percent, the psychological high is blocked by as little as 2 percent CBD [14]. 

 

Cannabis with THC below 1.0 percent and a CBD/THC ratio greater than one is therefore not capable of inducing a psychoactive effect. Hemp, it turns out, is not only not marijuana, it could be called "antimarijuana." 

 

The balance of cannabinoids is determined by the genetics of the plant. That it is a stable characteristic of a given genotype (i.e., the individual's specific genetic complement) was demonstrated by Dr. Paul Mahlberg of Indiana University-Bloomington [15]. In other words, plants do not capriciously alter their cannabinoid profile. 

 

Thus, using the chemotype approach, Cannabisvariants can be classified on the basis of their THC-CBD balance. This is accepted by a growing number of scientists. Gabriel Nahas, M.D., Ph.D., writes, "One should still distinguish two principal large groups of varieties of Cannabis sativa, the drug type and the fiber type. In addition to this classical distinction of these two groups, botanists generally accept description consisting of three chemical types: (a) the pure drug type, high THC content (2-6 percent) and lacking CBD[cannabidiol]; (b) the "intermediate type" (predominantly THC); and © the fiber type (THC<0.25 percent)." [16]

 

Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Marijuana Project at the University of Mississippi-Oxford, which analyzesCannabis samples sent in by law enforcement agencies, explained to the author [17] that his group is currently reevaluating the data collected since the 1960s. They are taking a new approach that classifies any sample with less than 1.0 percent THC and a CBD-to-THC ratio greater than one as "ditchweed," in order to have a proper discrimination among the samples. This was never done for the data on which the claims of great potency increase are based, from pre-1983 samples. Interestingly, this same threshold- 

 

THC less than 1 percent and the ratio of CBD to THC greater than one

 

-is a prescription for industrial hemp. 

 

Current hemp varieties grown in Canada and Europe are certified to have THC levels below 0.3 percent. The certification system originally developed in Europe to allow for the commercialization of industrial hemp considered the ratio of CBD to THC as well as the absolute percent THC. The original THC threshold was 0.8 percent. When varieties with lower levels of THC were developed by French breeders, the breeders were able to persuade the European Union to reduce the tolerance further, giving the French until recently a de facto monopoly of hemp seed varieties sold in the European Union.

 

In the United States, Cannabis with any detectable trace of THC is illegal. CBD is not considered at all.

 

Exposing the Myths

 

Much of the rest of the world quickly and relatively easily moved beyond the debate about hemp and marijuana to focus on how best to reintroduce a crop that at one time was the world's best selling fiber. In the United States we are still paralyzed by our belief that industrial hemp is a drug crop. This belief has been nurtured by the dissemination of much misinformation. Here we shall shed some scientific light on ten of the most widespread and dark myths about the relationship of marijuana and hemp.

 

Myth: U.S. law has always treated hemp and marijuana the same 

 

Reality: U.S. drug laws offer clear evidence that the U.S. government at one time understood and accepted the distinction between marijuana and hemp. 

 

The 1937 Marijuana Tax Act defined marijuana as: "(A)ll parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination." [18]

 

The Marihuana Tax Act was proposed by the Treasury Department, a division of which was the Bureau of Narcotics. In support of the bill, Assistant General Council Clinton Hester testified: "The form of the bill is such . . . as not to interfere materially with any industrial, medical or scientific uses which the plant may have. Since hemp fiber and articles manufactured therefrom are obtained from the harmless mature stalk of the plant, all such products have been completely eliminated from the purview of the bill by defining the term "marijuana" in the bill, so as to exclude from its provisions the mature stalk and its compounds or manufacturers."

 

Hester went on to add: "There are also some dealings in marihuana seeds for planting purposes and for use in the manufacture of oil which is ultimately employed by the paint and varnish industry. As the seeds, unlike the mature stalk, contain the drug [later shown to be untrue-dpw], the same complete exemption could not be applied in this instance. But this type of transaction, as well as any transfer of completed paint or varnish products, has been exempted from transfer tax." [19]

 

Harry J. Anslinger, Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (the predecessor to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)), told the Senate Committee that those in the domestic hemp industry "are not only amply protected under this act, but they can go ahead and raise hemp just as they have always done it."

 

After the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act, during World War II, the federal government launched an aggressive "Hemp for Victory" campaign. U.S. armed forces had relied on abacá,Manila hemp, imported from the Philippines, for rope, canvas, uniforms, and other products. After the Philippines fell to Japanese forces in 1942, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Army urged farmers to grow hemp. Without any change in federal law, more than 400,000 acres of hemp were cultivated in the United States between 1942 and 1945, aided by the War Hemp Industries Corporation, which built 42 hemp mills in the Midwest [20]. The last commercial hemp fields were planted in Wisconsin in 1957. 

 

In 1961 the U.S. became a party to the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[21]. That Convention expressly recognized the distinction between marijuana and industrial hemp, exempting the latter from coverage. "This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the Cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fiber and seed) or horticultural purposes." [22]

 

The United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1990, supplement to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs) did not concern itself with such botanical aspects of the Cannabisplant as THC [23]. The terms of this treaty concerned the use to which the plant is put. As such, this treaty does not constrain its signatories' freedom to allow industrial hemp agriculture. Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria-all countries with expanding hemp acreage-are signatories to this convention.

 

In 1970, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act repealed the Marihuana Tax Act but incorporated verbatim that Act's definition of "marihuana."

 

"The term 'marihuana' means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa (L.), whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin; . . ."[24]

 

The key difference was that, while the 1937 Act used a system of taxation and disclosure that allowed the government to penalize marijuana growers without punishing industrial hemp growers, the 1970 Act abolished the taxation approach and effectively made all Cannabiscultivation illegal, except where the DEA issued a limited-use permit, by setting zero tolerance for THC.

 

There is no indication that, in the debate about the 1970 law, the implications of its passage on the future of industrial hemp were ever considered. By that time the domestic industrial hemp industry had disappeared, and there were no farmers to argue its case. 

 

Despite the 1970 narcotics act, which resulted in the lumping together of marijuana and hemp, the federal government continues to make a distinction between the two plants. For example, in 1994, by Executive Order, the President of the United States designated hemp as a strategic crop of importance to national security [25]. 

 

Hemp is legally grown by 29 countries around the world at present, with almost half of these having made hemp cultivation legal only in the last few years. In 1996 world hemp production was about 100,000 metric tons. Four-fifths of this total was grown in China, Russia, and Korea [26]. Each year the U.S. government identifies those countries that it considers to be drug-exporting nations. None of the major hemp-growing and -exporting nations has ever been listed.

 

The legal history is clear. The federal government has long recognized the distinction between hemp and marijuana. This distinction is codified in numerous domestic laws and statutes and in international treaties to which we are a party. The DEA has it in its authority to recognize this history and to drop hemp from its narcotics schedule. Instead the DEA, unlike its predecessor, the Bureau of Narcotics, is aggressively trying to persuade Americans that hemp and marijuana are identical plants. We can speculate about the reasons. The results are widespread confusion and the inability of America's farmers and manufacturers to take part in the worldwide resurgence of hemp cultivation and use. 

 

Myth: Smoking industrial hemp can get someone high. Marijuana in the 1960s contained THC levels approaching those of today's hemp.

 

Reality: The THC levels in industrial hemp are so low that no one can get high from smoking it. Moreover, industrial hemp, while low in THC, is high in another kind of cannabinoid, CBD, which counteracts THC's psychoactivity.

 

As William M. Pierce Jr., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Louisville School of Medicine notes, "Industrial hemp does in fact contain a psychoactive substance, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and thus the question appears at first reading to be a reasonable one. Upon closer consideration, however, using the most fundamental principles of pharmacology, it can be shown that it is absurd, in practical terms, to consider industrial hemp useful as a drug." [27]

 

According to Professor Pierce, to obtain a psychoactive effect with even 1 percent THC hemp (industrial hemp and feral hemp, the wild hemp the DEA aggressively harvests and burns[28], contain less than 0.5% percent THC [29]), would require the user to smoke 10-12 cigarettes containing hemp in a "very short period of time. . . . This large volume (and) high temperature inhalation of vapor, gas, and smoke would be difficult for a person to withstand, much less enjoy." Professor Pierce goes on to note that anyone who ate hemp hoping to get "high" would be consuming the fiber equivalent of several doses of a high-fiber laxative. In other words, the very unpleasant side effects would dissuade anyone from trying to use industrial hemp as a drug.

 

Dr. Pierce points out that beer sold as "nonalcohol" contains measurable alcohol. So does mouthwash. Even nutmeg contains a psychoactive substance. But the authorities are not aggressively concerned about the abuse of these products because the side effects are so severe as to discourage such abuse. 

 

Critics have alleged that the marijuana of the sixties had THC levels comparable to those of industrial hemp. But when Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D., and John Morgan, M.D., examined this assertion they found it lacked substance. 

 

When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the early 1970s are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. [30]

 

Dr. Mahmoud ElSohly, Director of the Marijuana Project at the University of Mississippi-Oxford for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, was asked by the author about his assertion, quoted in antihemp literature [31], that 0.5 percent THC could produce a high. Dr. ElSohly admitted that it might be difficult to distinguish from a placebo effect and would require a substantial amount of smoked material. He acknowledged that the CBD in industrial hemp confounds the psychoactive effect of the THC and called for more research in this area.

 

When industrial hemp is grown legally and where federal authorities do not call it marijuana, people do not smoke it. Industrial hemp is a crop that no informed person would smoke, and if the naive do, they do not remain naive. If they think they got "high," they are confusing the experience with anoxia or hyperventilation.

 

Myth: Even though THC levels are low in hemp, the THC can be extracted and concentrated to make a powerful drug.

 

Reality: Extracting THC from industrial hemp would require such an expensive, hazardous, and time-consuming process that it is extremely unlikely anyone would ever attempt it, rather than simply obtaining high-THC marijuana instead.

 

Botanist and Cannabis expert Robert C. Clarke, writing for the International Hemp Association to Health Canada concerning Canada's new regulations, addressed this issue as follows: "Although industrial hemp does contain trace amounts of THC, it is of no practical significance. There is also a minor percentage of precious gold dissolved in sea water, but it is no more economically feasible to extract than is THC from hemp." [32]

 

If industrial hemp were "cooked down" to concentrate the extract, it would also, as noted by Dr. Paul Mahlberg, Professor of Biology at Indiana University-Bloomington, contain many products other than THC, including CBD, which would counteract the effects of the THC.

 

Dr. Mahlberg, is one of the U.S. scientists with permission to work with Cannabis.. When asked by the Wisconsin Agribusiness Council about reports that someone had used feral hemp, commonly called ditchweed, to make a concentrated hallucinogen, he responded: "As I understand it, the comment was that someone had used ditchweed to prepare hallucinogenic material. The assumed conclusion drawn by some people then being that industrial hemp could be used in this way. My response to this conclusion is that industrial hemp will not be attractive to drug users. Industrial hemp, as grown in Europe, contains 0.3 percent or less THC, and is not a source of marihuana; marihuana attractive to drug users contains 5 to 20 percent THC, the higher percent being the desired material." [33]

 

Dr. Mahlberg went on to point out that an extraction from industrial hemp using a deceptive procedure found on the Internet will result in a sludge containing many noxious elements and very little THC. Of course the preponderant cannabinoid in this sludge will be CBD. The THC would have to be further refined from the CBD, an expensive and complicated undertaking for a paltry yield. Furthermore, Dr. Mahlberg explains, the chemicals required to attempt such an extraction are themselves restricted. Any individuals attempting this would be conspicuous and a danger only to themselves. 

 

A number of untrue or undocumented statements have been made by the drug enforcement network regarding feral hemp and its relationship to drugs. For example, several state and local police officers have publicly testified that they know of instances in which ditchweed has been made into high-potency drugs. Yet we can find no documented case where this has occurred. [34]

 

A drug officer in one Wisconsin county wrote the following to the Wisconsin Agribusiness Council to discourage them from supporting industrial hemp: "Dr. Guy Gabral (sic, actually Cabral), University of Virginia, has documented the use of "drug chaw," a cancer-causing product made from 0.1 percent THC marijuana that through chemical process becomes a product containing 40 percent THC." [35] When contacted about this quote, Dr. Cabral repudiated it. He explained that he was describing an Afghani method of hashish production that employs potent Cannabis strains and not something that could be done with industrial hemp. [36]

 

Myth: Hemp fields would be used to hide marijuana plants.

 

Reality: Hemp is grown quite differently from marijuana. Moreover, it is harvested at a different time than marijuana. Finally, cross-pollination between hemp and marijuana plants would significantly reduce the potency of the marijuana plants.

 

Hemp grown for fiber is planted in narrow row spacing (4 inches apart). Branching is discouraged, and plants are not allowed to flower. The stems are kept small by the high density and foliage develops only on the top. Hemp plants crowd out weeds and other hemp plants not equal to the competition. [37]

 

Marijuana plants, on the contrary, are spaced widely to encourage branching, and the flower is the harvested product. Marijuana is a horticultural crop planted in wide spacing to minimize stand competition and promote flower production. It branches thickly like a Christmas tree. In contrast, hemp selected for fiber has only a few branches.

 

What about seed producers who space their plants widely? Where seed is the harvested product, whether as reproduction seed or oilseed, purity is critical to marketability. The mixing of off-type genotypes would be scrupulously avoided in seed production fields. 

 

Breeders and producers of sweet corn go to great lengths to isolate their crops from the pollen of field corn. The same applies to hemp and marijuana. People who grow strains of Cannabisfor smoking try to avoid pollination of the flowers. The superior quality material is obtained from seedless plants, the so-called "sinsemilla."

 

Hemp fields, in fact, could be a deterrent to marijuana growers. A strong case can be made that the best way to reduce the THC level of marijuana grown outdoors would be to grow industrial hemp near it. An experiment in Russia found that hemp pollen could travel 12 kilometers. This would mean that a hemp field would create a zone with a 12-kilometer radius within which no marijuana grower would want to establish a crop.

 

The reciprocal also applies. Growers of hemp seed would not want Cannabis of an "off type" (i.e., not the intended genetic type) mixing its pollen with their flowers. The isolation of genotypes is a common procedure used by the seed industry to preserve the genetic integrity of varieties. Valued strains are created by plant breeding, at substantial expense. Marijuana pollen would destroy this value.

 

There is another reason that marijuana growers would be unlikely to plant their crop in a hemp field. All countries that have recently begun to recommercialize hemp operate under a permit system whereby the farmer must let the local police know which field is being planted in hemp. Would a marijuana grower decide to plant his or her crop in an area high on the police radar screen and subject to monitoring without notice?

 

Ironically, another fiber crop, kenaf, grown in the South, resembles Cannabis in its leaf morphology so closely that it is often mistaken for marijuana. Growers report frequent incidents of kids stealing kenaf that they have taken for marijuana. Since kenaf would not cross-pollinate with Cannabis, and has a longer growing season, kenaf fields would actually be a better hiding place for marijuana than would hemp fields.

 

Myth: Legalizing hemp while continuing the prohibition on marijuana would burden local police forces. 

 

Reality: The police in countries where hemp is grown as an agricultural crop have experienced no such burdens. 

 

The key to a regulated hemp industry is seed certification, a common practice in the international seed industry. The burden for producing hemp varieties compliant with the prescribed THC threshold falls on the seed producer and breeding operation. As mentioned, THC content is genetically determined. Numerous low-THC varieties have been produced by European hemp breeders and these are certified by the appropriate government agency that publishes the approved list. (The protocol used in Europe to determine the average THC content of a given variety is appended to this document.)

 

Hawaii State Representative Cynthia Thielen reported from her investigative trip to Europe that the police forces in these countries have observed no problems with the agricultural production of industrial hemp. [38]

 

In countries that have recently legalized industrial hemp, individual farmers and manufacturers are licensed and registered. Field locations are recorded with local authorities. Only when there is probable cause does law enforcement need to concern itself with individual farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short. "One type of Cannabis is high in the psychoactive cannabinoid, THC, and low in the antipsychoactive cannabinoid, CBD. This type is popularly known as marijuana. Another type is high in CBD and low in THC. Variants of this type are called industrial hemp."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCORE!!!! 

 

Went to a new dispensary today in Lansing to pick up another months supply Cannatonic.  This one tested the highest CBD and more importantly, lowest THC pheno I've sampled yet.  17% CBD and 0.02% THC.  Better yet, I found a seed.  It's in a paper towel now.  called to see if there were any males in the garden it was grown in or if it's from a hermied plant.

  Quality is spectacular.  Best , freshest smelling and best looking of the 3 places/growers I've sampled from.  I'll definitely be going back if I run out before mine is ready.

I noticed that the last one, with over 1% THC, isn't the best for daytime.  I think the longer decarb time on the CBD turns most of the THC present to CBN.  The last 1/2gr of kief from that one is getting decarbed 40min instead of an hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A hybrid of the 2.  Something that is over 17%CBD and as little/ no THC as possible, a good terpene profile and produces well indoors.

  Waiting on 2 cannatonic "perkin's cut" clones since the end of Dec(that's when I was supposed to have them).

  The seed I found from this cut may be selfed.  I think I found a male flower or 2 in the oz. I got.  Fingers crossed.  This one smells great.  Orangey citrus(which the orange creamsicle I have is the best stomach relief/munchies meds I've found so the citrus shouldn't hurt), pungent maybe coffeeish smell.  May have to see how this one tastes and works in a bong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...