Artificial/Synthetic/Natural cannabinoids: Semantics or mission critical distinctions?

[envee]

Would have been an even better question if i had of spelt occuring correcly lol.

I’ll explain my view on this.

Synthetic “Cannabinoids”

In chemistry, synthetics (chemical synthesis) is defined as:

The artificial execution of chemical reactions to obtain one or several products.

You take something, do something, it is now something else, with intent.

That process would apply to what i call synthetic cannabinoids in my understanding/point of view.

Often it isn’t the question of it is the same it is question of are their contaminates from the synthesis, if done right… arguably… many chemists would say it’s safe for consumption and this is why opinions vary drastically on the subject as you stated.

This is my view, now the common view is that synthetic cannabinoids aren’t even that, they are molecules that act as if they were cannabinoids when they aren’t, binding to the CB1 & CB2, producing similar effects.

(Felt that needed to be specified before someone yelled at me)

Natural Cannabinoids

I mean, it’s all in the name.

blame the plant, it made the drugs, not me

Artificial Cannabinoids

Arguably both fully synthetic and semi-synthetic cannabinoids are artificial, if the plant didn’t make it, we did.

Doesn’t mean the plant can’t make them.

As for conversion resulting in semi-synthetics, the health effects are unknown, if any, and the major concern is aligned with that of synthetics…

Contaminates from conversion/synthesis.

Ultimately… this is a mind fuck of what words define what and further description should be applied as I cannot express this correctly in the way i see it in my head…

[MedicineManHempCo]

@envee

if done right…

Obviously this is the operative question when regarding the safety of converted material. I won’t drop my IP, but let it be known that there are people that know what they are doing, and they are using sufficiently advanced methods that eliminate many of the issues with the previously available production methods. There’s a long line of people on here that trash the conversion market, many of whom don’t know their ass from a hole in the lab. Just know that there are some bright folks that genuinely care about the people consuming their product and will continually strive to put out the best.

[envee]

@MedicineManHempCo

I won’t drop my IP, but let it be known that there are people that know what they are doing, and they are using sufficiently advanced methods that eliminate many of the issues with the previously available production methods.

In my opinion of conversion… if it results in a molecule that is identical in all ways, shapes, forms and description in comparison to when it occurs naturally and without any contaminates from the conversion, i would agree it is likely safe to consume.

As far as i know, conversions are a free for all currently, there is no regulation… only don’t make this one it’s illegal.

[pdxcanna]

Cbg hemp biomass

[Labdog]

@MedicineManHempCo

they are using sufficiently advanced methods that eliminate many of the issues with the previously available production methods.

Do they eliminate the reaction byproducts? As in are there still mystery peaks and the handful of identified isomers at >1% in the finished product? Have you confirmed this by GC? This is THE major problem with conversions.

Not wanting you to give up any manufacturing secrets, but please let’s be specific about the byproducts.

[envee]

@cyclopath i managed to find the correct biological definitions of cannabinoids!

They are put into 3 primary classes.

This information can be used to settle this discussion indefinitely and with use of the correct terminology.

I know the discussion was geared around the parameters of how to determine Artificial/Synthetic/Natural Cannabinoids, but those words don’t do us any justice here.

I was correct when i had stated:

@envee

I cannot express this correctly in the way i see it in my head…

but i can now, i was right regarding my perspective on the matter AND i learnt why and how i was correct!

The Farm Bill/DEA is technically wrong and SCIENCE can prove it!

Endogenous Cannabinoids - Your Body Made Them.

Endogenous cannabinoids, or endocannabinoids, are naturally occurring, lipid-based neurotransmitters . These neurotransmitters are chemical messengers in the body that send signals between nerve cells. Endocannabinoids help with various bodily functions.

Phytocannabinoids - The Plant Made Them.

Phytocannabinoids, are strictly defined as naturally occuring plant-derived cannabinoids produced by glandular trichomes covering the surface of the cannabis plant

Synthetic Cannabinoids - Humans Made Them (Outside of our own body or the body of a plant)

Synthetic Cannabinoids are defined as Exogenous cannabinoids that DID NOT NATURALLY OCCUR IN GLANDULAR TRICHOMES OR WITHIN YOUR BODY

All types/methods of synthesis/isomerization resulting in a cannabinoid that was not produced naturally within’ the body of a cannabis plant or within your own body are by correct definition Synthetic Cannabinoids.

All converted cannabinoids are soon going to subject to scrutiny under these definitions!

This isn’t saying that they are not safe to consume, but they will have to be marketed/regulated as synthetics!

[Dr_Jebril]

@envee

Arguably both fully synthetic and semi-synthetic cannabinoids are artificial, if the plant didn’t make it, we did.

Doesn’t mean the plant can’t make them.

Artificial means that is not found in nature (as far as we know).
Artificial implies synthetic, but the reverse is not always true. For instance, synthetic d9-THC is not artificial.

[eyeworm]

A chemical can be both synthetic and endogenous. Your body can make a chemical, and that same chemical can be synthesized. It doesn’t make them two different chemicals. Hormones are synthesized all the time, for instance.

[AgTonik]

Am I the only one that misses JWH-018?

[c0dean]

i think its cool that we synthesized the hormones we get from the sun.

[envee]

@Dr_Jebril

Artificial means that is not found in nature (as far as we know).

This is difficult to interpret as I’ve often based my opinion on the literal definition of Artificial.

ar·ti·fi·cial

/ˌärdəˈfiSH(ə)l/

• made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural

@Dr_Jebril

For instance, synthetic d9-THC is not artificial.

By the literal definition synthetic d9-THC appears to fall under the description of artificial.

Discrepancies like this are why I’m trying so hard to understand what exactly is what so when i speak on the matter i can be sure i am using the correct definitions and terminologies.

[eyeworm]

I think future historians will look back and say we first went wrong when we stopped worshipping the sun.

[envee]

@eyeworm

A chemical can be both synthetic and endogenous. Your body can make a chemical, and that same chemical can be synthesized. It doesn’t make them two different chemicals.

Yes you are correct, it does not make the chemical different.

Although i do know many that would argue natural D9 produces a superior effect to synthetic D9… although it’s the same… so… more research needed? Placebo effect? I certainly cannot say.

I can say with certainty it makes the source of the chemical different, which arguably i think is very important.

My goal here is to be able to reference/identify a cannabinoid correctly based on the source it came from.

The biological definitions appear to be accurate and irrefutable, I’m open to any information that suggests otherwise.

[Dr_Jebril]

@envee

This is difficult to interpret as I’ve often based my opinion on the literal definition of Artificial.

Where did you source this definition from ?

The one I generally see specifies that it does no occur naturally.

Artificial definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

It seems less clear in biology, but in chemistry I believe it is more clear.

Natural - synthetic - artificial!

[envee]

@Dr_Jebril

Where did you source this definition from ?

I sourced it directly from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary).

I reviewed the PubMed article, i can see where you sourced your definition.

As in all scientific communication precise language is essential for giving and receiving messages correctly. Thus artificial would generally mean something not found in nature and synthetic would mean something that is man-made

where the heck is the dictionary for scientific communication

I really wish to know which definition is correct.

Is the article wrong or is Oxford?

[Kingofthekush420]

@envee

The Farm Bill/DEA is technically wrong and SCIENCE can prove it!

The farm bill is the law, it doesnt really matter what science says if the law is different. How long have we been trying to get clarity on this subject and it never has happened.

Synthetic cannabinoids are defined by congress and have had binding studies done on them for them to be deemed as such. Synthetic thcs are also defined in the CSA.

Marijuana is actually different then any other drug in the CSA as its entry does not include synthetic equivalents which is why in the 70s they had to add synthetic thc itself to the CSA

The above court ruling was when the DEA tried to control hemp seeds because they could contain thc and lost.

So as you can see synthetic thcs and Marijuana and Marijuana extract are banned. Something like THCV even made fully synthetically would not be banned as it is not Marijuana, a Marijuana extract OR a synthetic THC (tetrahydrocannabinol isnt Tetrahydrocannabivarin). You have an even better argument for something like @eyeworm s hhc product as its not found in the plant in any amount

Read the last sentence in the paragraph I highlighted

“The DEA has no authority to regulate drugs that are not scheduled, and it has not followed procedures required to schedule a substance.”

Thc v isnt scheduled and neither is @eyeworm s hhc especially because his hhc product isnt found in marijuana. Because of this the DEA would need to follow scheduling procedures to control it and more then likely they do not do it because they know Marijuana shouldnt even be a schedule 1 so how are they going to schedule something less potent as a schedule 1? They wont be able to

[envee]

@Kingofthekush420

The farm bill is the law, it doesnt really matter what science says if the law is different.

I frankly don’t care what the laws currently say, they have been wrong and corrected before and it will happen again.

If the law is incorrect, it does matter and law makers need to be informed of it so the correction can be actively implemented.

(I’m sure it has been brought to light before and it is likely being reviewed already… ultimately… mark my words, the discrepancies i have pointed out WILL one day be corrected, the correction is already in the beginning stages in Canada)

International Leagalization is yet to happen within’ the G7 Countries, much will change in the coming decade, i wish to be ahead of those changes as the market goes International.

The world has an evergrowing desire for natural and organic products.

You can find decent quality cannabis flower for pennies on the dollar in quantity…

Organic boutique flower… still fetches high value figures.

You know why?

SOURCE MATTERS

@Kingofthekush420

You have an even better argument for something like @eyeworm s hhc product as its not found in the plant in any amount

I’m not trying to make a case against anyone, i am trying to find solid ground to stand on so i can accurately address what is in question here when speaking on the subject matter.

@Kingofthekush420

Marijuana shouldnt even be a schedule 1

I agree, but that isn’t the subject matter of what is being discussed here.

It would be deeply appreciated if you could offer help with evidence in relation to the subject:

@envee

I really wish to know which definition is correct.

Is the article wrong or is Oxford?

[Kingofthekush420]

@envee

I frankly don’t care what the laws currently say, they have been wrong and corrected before and it will happen again.

On the opposite the law doesnt give a fuck what a no body like you say or think. The law is above both me and you and the CSA and drug laws governing marijuana and such drugs are over 50 years old.

The law says hemp isnt marijuana and the only scheduled cannabinoids are synthetic ones which have had binding studies done by congress (which isnt any hemp derived cannabinoid except maybe d8 thcp) and synthetic thcs. This is fact and this has been the law here in our country for 40 or 50 years.

Your arguments literally mean nothing when you dont understand the law which is why you cant even refute anything ive posted. The law > your feelings

The law isnt incorrect. Ive shown you court cases where the upper courts have defined our laws. The fact is if a drug isnt scheduled it cant be controlled by the DEA and none of the hemp derived cannabinoids are scheduled. Canada is canada idgaf about anything they do everything im talking about applies to our laws here in the US

@envee

SOURCE MATTERS

Source doesnt matter if the drug isnt scheduled thats what you dont understand. There is no difference between synthetic d9 and d9 derived from the plant if they are both pure. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule.

@envee

I’m not trying to make a case against anyone, i am trying to find solid ground to stand on so i can accurately address what is in question here when speaking on the subject matter

Then try to refute anything i just posted instead of saying

@envee

I frankly don’t care what the laws currently say

This literally isnt even a logical argument and its pretty obvious you dont understand how the drug laws work in the US even after i posted and spent the time to explain it to you.

@envee

It would be deeply appreciated if you could offer help with evidence in relation to the subject:

I literally already posted the legal definition of synthetic cannabinoid which would be more accurate then any scientific definition since we are talking about the subject of LAW and not SCIENCE. You just dont agree with the definition which is fine, doesnt mean the law wouldnt hold you to the same standards just because you dont believe in it.

Youre dealing with drug laws that are OLD, if a drug isnt scheduled then the DEA cannot control it which is why the first step when the DEA wants to curb a drug is for them to emergency schedule it till binding studies can be done.

[cyclopath]

@envee

I really wish to know which definition is correct.

That would depend on the AHJ near as I can tell.

Because they went ahead and made their own definitions for those same words.

In a patch work manner too…

[envee]

@cyclopath

Because they went ahead and made their own definitions for those same words.

I can’t even find a definitive answer on these definitions, no shocker they made their own.

(The meme is directed at the AHJ with their make-belief definitions, not suggesting you’re a clown)