Jump to content

New Medical Marijuana Laws Set Industry 'on Steroids'


bobandtorey

Recommended Posts

So that's where you got the misinformation about not being able to decarb past 70% without loosing THC?  They decarbed on a plate heated from teh bottom instead of an oven.  Maybe you should look for new information?

 

And as for CBD not boiling off aat the boiling point, the same is true for THC, no?  So it matters not either way because they both act the same.  trying to bust the dams where I encounter them but some people are too set in building them to listen.  Maybe you should read better and understand what you are learning and saying before passing it on as dogma.

 

It's a heck of a lot easier and less wasteful to just find a hi CBD cut. People aren't hording them they just aren't in that much demand because people keep calling it a scam and saying patients are brainwashed if they think they need CBD and that THC is the "real" medicine.  It's all real medicine.

Nope. SkunkPharmResearch is a great resource. You are just tripping hard. Thinking you can outsmart a leader in cannabis research. Just keep blathering away.

Edited by Restorium2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the methods.  They did the decarb on a heat plate, meaning only the bottom was getting heted.  Much different than a convection oven.  Look at the results on Iron Labs or PSI.  Obviously they are wrong because there is a lot of oils and medibles that are 100% decarb with little to no CBN. 

Ya, I'm trippin because I understand the science/physics and prove you wrong?  You should learn to understand better and then you wouldn't be passing on false info just because a brand name told you something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh,... and how did I get dragged in on that one...?

 

attachicon.gifkackepieksen.gif

Because you were the one who said you made oil with NO heat because of your heart and CBN levels.  Looks like Zap proved you wrong on that one too.

 

Maybe GG should've got her oil tested to see if your theory that CBN levels went thru the roof after a month or so in a closed vile with no oxygen present was thru?  May answer Zaps question also.

Edited by ANHEMP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This link says that conversion of THC to CBN using heat is excruciatingly slow. http://www.catscientific.com/decarboxylating-cannabis/

 

I wonder if there would be any conversion at all in a vacuum, i.e without oxygen?

And that was at 251f for decarb, not 300+ to burn off the THC like resto stated.  Any data for that temperature and restos methodology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also just wondering why you aren't scrutinizing Restos claims on the site.  you seem to defend each other from any outsiders but never question each others theories?  Even when you have said things in the past which discount each other.  Are you guys looking for the truth or just to stick up for one another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

320 degrees fahrenheit. The boiling point for THC is below that and CBD is above. You can vary a little above 320 because the CBD will resist boiling at the temps at and just above 320. You might have to cook it a long time to totally remove all the THC. So you would have to test it often along the way and take notes so you can repeat what you have discovered works well for you. 

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you were the one who said you made oil with NO heat because of your heart and CBN levels.  Looks like Zap proved you wrong on that one too.

 

Maybe GG should've got her oil tested to see if your theory that CBN levels went thru the roof after a month or so in a closed vile with no oxygen present was thru?  May answer Zaps question also.

 

 

CBN is being created while the plant is still growing man. 

 

Degradation. Light alone will increases the breakdown.

 

I don't use oil at all myself.  I tend to only smoke fresh marijuana as well.

 

Natural degradation creates CBN.

 

I could go through the degradation of other cannabinoids as well.

 

And,... I think I supported both sides in this silly argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you

You're welcome. If you get the chance to try it please let me know how it works for you. I stumbled onto this by overcooking some medibles. It was before I understood how heat worked with cannabinoids. We always experimented by making cookies. If you weren't careful you could cook the THC right out of them and you didn't get 'high'. They didn't make you tired. They didn't do anything. So it's definitely possible you could subtract the buzz and still have what ever else you were looking for. Especially if you could carefully do it with notes. Everyone is different and this could help someone who doesn't want the buzz.

 

It's great someone might even be able to use this. Makes my day. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBN is being created while the plant is still growing man. 

 

Degradation. Light alone will increases the breakdown.

 

I don't use oil at all myself.  I tend to only smoke fresh marijuana as well.

 

Natural degradation creates CBN.

 

I could go through the degradation of other cannabinoids as well.

 

And,... I think I supported both sides in this silly argument.

So you now think that the oil GG made just naturally decarbed instead of all degrading to CBN in the vial in absence of oxygen?  Cause you were pretty headstrong in that argument that the oil turned to mostly CBN because she used heat. I'm pretty sure you stated that any heating in the oil making process produced CBN.

  Really, I never saw you say anything against resto or zaps claims in this silly little argument.  So maybe you think wrong?

Why don't you go thru degradation of other cannabinoids and teach resto that if CBD doesn't all boil off at it's boiling point then THC wont all boil off at it's boiling point.  you did it in another thread before when he made the same claim but seem to be letting him spread bad info in this one.  Just wondering why you aren't being consistent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome. If you get the chance to try it please let me know how it works for you. I stumbled onto this by overcooking some medibles. It was before I understood how heat worked with cannabinoids. We always experimented by making cookies. If you weren't careful you could cook the THC right out of them and you didn't get 'high'. They didn't make you tired. They didn't do anything. So it's definitely possible you could subtract the buzz and still have what ever else you were looking for. Especially if you could carefully do it with notes. Everyone is different and this could help someone who doesn't want the buzz.

 

It's great someone might even be able to use this. Makes my day. Thanks.

I see, you just surmised that the CBD would be left behind.  Thanks for finally admitting you are giving out theory that hasn't been tested.  You should probably warn them that it may just end up wasting their product and time though if you want to be truthful about it.  How do you suggest they test if there is any CBD left at the end, by using a testing lab you don't believe in?  By them getting a headache?  By them having a placebo effect or becoming brainwashed?

  Gad you're excited that someone will do the leg work for your theory.  Too bad if they say it doesn't work because of spending money at a testing facility you won't believe it anyway.  Because testing facilities make up the #'s right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you taken the time to see what CBN further degrades into?

 

Its natural. there are ways to manipulate natural occurrences.

 

CBD also degrades.

 

CBG is still being converted.

 

etc etc....

 

All I see here is people arguing past each other.

 

What Resto says is mostly legitimate. What you say is mostly legitimate.

 

I am  seeing a purposeful argument from someone hiding behind a new name on the forum.  To know my points you would have had to be on the site for longer than your name. So I assume you were either banned at some point and remade a new name, or simply made this new name to be argumentative.

 

Not sure which.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the real distinction we are making here is between holistic approaches which would accept cannabis as a whole herbal substance that requires an understanding of the mind-body continuum for it's effects to be understood, and scientific reductionism through which such complex processes are oversimplified and reduced to a lab slip. Science uses reductionism in the search for a single casual component whereas in nature there are an infinite number of causes for any given effect.

 

This is why medicinal drugs have to be isolated compounds for the scientific approach to have any meaning and even then the reductionism leads to synthetic compounds which bear little relation to the whole mind-body effects that natural herbal compounds provide. Any substance has effects on a person alongside the person's current states, which are unique to each person.

 

I think that this 'reductionism', assigning roles to the cannabinoids, putting them in a box, leads us in the wrong direction when trying to understand how all the components of cannabis work together to give us the effects we are looking for. That's why we often see the lab results not jiving with patient results.  If labs had the answers then we would all be using synthetic cannabis. From the failures of synthetics we learn that the simple chemical make up of an 'engineered' substance doesn't always match what nature actually has going on with a very complex substance like cannabis. We have a lot to learn and individual patient results are where we learn the important things. I don't think we are any where near ready to hand over our caregiver/patient research to a simple lab like we have access to here in Michigan. The important answers will be found by inventive growers and their patients. One patient at a time. The grower/caregiver is the real lab. The patient is the test equipment, very carefully tested, with the mind-body continuum, and the patient's current state, always in the forefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems that the real distinction we are making here is between holistic approaches which would accept cannabis as a whole herbal substance that requires an understanding of the mind-body continuum for it's effects to be understood, and scientific reductionism through which such complex processes are oversimplified and reduced to a lab slip. Science uses reductionism in the search for a single casual component whereas in nature there are an infinite number of causes for any given effect.
 
This is why medicinal drugs have to be isolated compounds for the scientific approach to have any meaning and even then the reductionism leads to synthetic compounds which bear little relation to the whole mind-body effects that natural herbal compounds provide. Any substance has effects on a person alongside the person's current states, which are unique to each person.
 
I think that this 'reductionism', assigning roles to the cannabinoids, putting them in a box, leads us in the wrong direction when trying to understand how all the components of cannabis work together to give us the effects we are looking for. That's why we often see the lab results not jiving with patient results.  If labs had the answers then we would all be using synthetic cannabis. From the failures of synthetics we learn that the simple chemical make up of an 'engineered' substance doesn't always match what nature actually has going on with a very complex substance like cannabis. We have a lot to learn and individual patient results are where we learn the important things. I don't think we are any where near ready to hand over our caregiver/patient research to a simple lab like we have access to here in Michigan. The important answers will be found by inventive growers and their patients. One patient at a time. The grower/caregiver is the real lab. The patient is the test equipment, very carefully tested, with the mind-body continuum, and the patient's current state, always in the forefront.

 

Who said anything about giving up the patient/cg relationship and relying only on lab results?  You must not be paying attention.  And who said ANYTHING about synthesizing? 

All I said was use testing facilities to CONFIRM what's in something so that you can replicate and not miss anything.  It's just a tool.  You're disdain for them clouds your judgement and has you misunderstanding what people are saying.

As for the entourage effect it's not absent in HI CBD strains.  that would be like saying that Hi THC strains don't have anything to do with the entourage effect and it's only THC that's the medicine.  See it even has you looking at HI CBD strains as nothing like hi THC strains.  Gets us on topic but shows you have been misconstrueing what we are trying to say.  Even in hi CBD strains the thc to cbd ratio is 1 to 20 or 1 to 40 but there is still THC in every hi CBD strain, along with THCV, CBG, CBC, terpenes, etc,etc,etc.  Which is why I don't understand why anyone on a med mj site would discount and try to show some MJ isn't "real medicine" because it has low amounts of thc, which is what you guys are saying, except maybe mal with his one post that all cannabinoids work for something and someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each patient is different and their symptoms change, some drastic, some not so much, with the seasons and life situations, etc.  Some of my patients go lower THC and higher CBD during winter and stay away from sativas.  Maybe because auto immune and inflammatory diseases seem to spike in the N and S hemishere during winter.  The equator, not so much.  But using a testing facility and having on hand plants that are higher in CBG, CBN, CBD, THCV, CBDV, D-8 THC and different terpene profiles could help tremendously in charting what is in the strains other than THC that seems to help each patient at different times in teh year and in their individual cycles.  And looking at the scientific peer reviewed papers to try and assess what effects MAY happen from higher levels of each different compound and how some might interact with others is only smart and part of the learning process.  But telling me x strain grown by you works for whatever disease does me no good at all if my growing and harvesting method makes for a very different cannabinoid and terpene/flavenoid profile than what your growing style provides.

 

That sounds very anti science and anti progress type response, something that an intelligent Trump supporter would've come up with.  Trying to make my argument be one that aligns with supporting synthetic cannabinoids. But I guess it's the same line, if you can't refute what someone is saying make tehm look bad by linking them to a bad practice.  Put words in their mouth and make them defend themselves against something they nevver implied.  Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that you are saying that a hi CBD strain is tantamount to synthetic cannabinoids but these inbred, human manipulated hi THC strains are more natural than a hi CBD strain with a broad range of cannabinoids and terpenes/flavenoids present.  When people have been casting terpenes and other cannabinoids aside to manufacture the highest(unnatural) THC levels possible?  but those plants are more "medicinal" than a crossbred plant rich in many more medicinal compounds than just THC?  Is that what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that you are saying that a hi CBD strain is tantamount to synthetic cannabinoids but these inbred, human manipulated hi THC strains are more natural than a hi CBD strain with a broad range of cannabinoids and terpenes/flavenoids present.  When people have been casting terpenes and other cannabinoids aside to manufacture the highest(unnatural) THC levels possible?  but those plants are more "medicinal" than a crossbred plant rich in many more medicinal compounds than just THC?  Is that what you are saying?

 

Did you just say CBD plants are rich in MORE cannabinoids than a THC strain?

 

~Seems you are making the same ridiculous argument from the other side simply  for sake of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just say CBD plants are rich in MORE cannabinoids than a THC strain?

 

~Seems you are making the same ridiculous argument from the other side simply  for sake of argument.

Not in the general way you are trying to frame it but some yes, definitely more of a rounded profile than a 30+% hi THC plant.  Are you saying a 32% THC plant has room for as many different cannabinoids and terpenes/flavenoids as something 10%THC/10%CBD/2%CBG/.08%THCV/.4%CBDV/ 1% caryophylene/1% Limonene/.8%terpinoline, etc.etc.

   There's only so much room in those crystals for weight and only so much you can narrow down on plant vegetative material.  There is a wall on what % cannabinoids/teerpenes/flavenoids can be in a plant.  if it's 30+% THC how much room is left for other cannabinoids.  As you could see from Iron Labs front page most of the other cannabinoids came up N/D.  Kinda narrows the entourage effect the more of ONE component that you have, hence entourage. 

And before you "justify" your statement, yes I understand that small amounts can do a lot and some null out other effects and some can flip effects just in concentration of an individual terpene/cannabinoid/flavenoid. 

 

What I was saying is that most hi THC strains have been bred under a black mkt.  Just like alcohol went from predominantly beer and wine to hard liqour when prohibition started.  More of the illegal substance in a smaller space.  Same thing has been happening to cannabis.  Hi THC counts because of prohibition.  Now you are seeing 50/50 thc and cbd strains become more popular because of medical and an open mkt.  Given a choice and lagality people are able to choose because before it was what MOST people wanted and what had most of the illegal substance that ruled the mkt.

Edited by ANHEMP
Link to comment
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...