Yeah cbd chuds ruined there market and are now trying to ruin ours.
I like the thca argument lol. Better than synthetics
1 Like
It probably wasn’t even CBC.
It’s probably d10.
Also regulated but the cbn is a hint.
4 Likes
OLCC issues recall of cannabis vape products - Oregon.gov https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/Docs/news/news_releases/2023/nr011223-Cannabis-Product-Recall-Firefly.pdf
I think they’re CBD carts, could be cbc as a diluent
4 Likes
I’m glad we have your expert analysis on the situation. This gave me brain rot trying to read.
3 Likes
Thanks for the source, both you and @AlexSiegel have interesting takes.
I would also love for you to weigh in on the most common dangers of synthetic noids. I hear many people on here ragging the synth producers, but I have yet to see those people educating us on the specific risks inherent with the production of these synthetic noids. Specifically what do you identify being the biggest risk(s) to consumers regarding synthetic noids?
1 Like
What makes you think they’re cbd?
the packaging photo on the bottom and the amount of ratio carts listed on their site/leaflink
cherry wife is almost certainly hemp
2 Likes
Oh you’re right. I missed that
Lying. If its from Hemp. Being my number 1 concern.
CBN has never compared to THCP.
Consumers deserve to know what theyre actually consuming. Wouldn’t you agree?
The risk is the lawsuit for olivetol converted noids hiding under the guise of Hemp I bet is going to get worse.
Never mind all the fake d10 @alexsiegel is displaying for all to see.
Share with the class here please.
I don’t think total synthesis with olivetol is out there nearly as much as poor processing methods.
If something is a building block for synthesis of a molecule, trace amounts of blocks can be synthesized during trace breakdown of that molecule.
That’s what’s happening with trace olivetol and synthetic hemp. At least in the context you saw on my instagram.
1 Like
Think about that some more…
All those strains are HEMP.
…which almost certainly means they were processed by a hemp license and firefly purchased them.
1 Like
Does this mean that firefly added those bits of extracts to what they had in a blend
Or
They were converting hemp?
Why isn’t cbc found in hemp naturally allowed to be in there ig henpmis allowed to be added through Metrc?
Have you guys done any of that hemp Metrc and adding cbd to blends?
I’d wager the hemp products were purchased. Specifically for those blends.
The CBN because folks want it, and the CBC to prevent crystallization of the CBD. Both of these practices are prevalent on the hemp side.
Although I haven’t made it into their lab yet, I’m reasonably certain Firefly are not performing conversions deliberately or accidentally.
The owner is on here, but I’ll let them decide whether they want to join this conversation.
…and no, we have not bought any hemp derived products into METRC yet, and don’t have any plans to go there anytime soon
2 Likes
I don’t think there is any shame in their game as adding cbd through Metrc is totally kosher
Sounds like olcc needs to redefine what synthetic is because you can find cbc in plants yes?
That’s my current take. The CBN the as most likely “synthetic” by OLCC standards, the CBC is less obvious, but synthetic is certainly an option
Natural CBC (1a) is scalemic [6], but analogues from Rhododendron species like daurichromenic acid (6b) have been isolated in high optical purity [15]. The daurichromenic acid (DCRA) synthase from R. dauricum has been cloned and shows high similarity to CBCA synthase from Cannabis sativa [16]. An enantioselective transgenic production of (+)-daurichromenic has been developed in Aspergillus oryzae by heterologous expression of this synthase coupled to the one of its precursor (grifolic acid, 11) from the fungus Stachybotrys bisbyi (Figure 4) [17].
Figure 4: Enzymatic synthesis of daurichromenic acid (6b) from grifolic acid (11).
Synthesis: CBC (1a) is the only phytocannabinoids from Cannabis that can be obtained relatively easily by synthesis. The classic preparation is based on a tandem Knoevenagel-electrocyclic reaction between citral (12) and olivetol (5-n-pentylresorcinol, 13).https://coloradochromatography.com/media/cannabichromene.pdf
1 Like
IMO there absolutely shouldn’t be.
carts were legal by OLCC standards when sold to dispensaries.
when rules changed, dispensaries were informed that they had 6 months to sell inventory
producer made multiple attempts to buy back carts before that six months expired.
A preliminary investigation by the OLCC indicates that a combined total of more than 5,000 units of the products were manufactured between August 2021 and February 2022; not all of the products were distributed. The licensee has been cooperating with the OLCC to track down the distributed product.
ok, rules changes dec 28 2021. “not to be sold after july 2022”.
On December 28, 2021, the OLCC adopted new marijuana rules in OAR Chapter 845, Divisions 25 and 26. The rules place limits on the use of artificially derived cannabinoids in consumer products and create labeling requirements for any products containing artificially derived cannabinoids.
On and after July 1, 2022, retailers may not sell any product containing an artificially derived cannabinoid unless it has an OLCC-approved label that says “Artificially Derived Cannabinoid” in the product identity. Additionally, all products containing artificially derived cannabinoids must meet the requirements in OAR 845-025-1310. This means that products containing artificially derived Delta-8-THC can no longer be sold starting July 1, 2022.
https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/Bulletins/Compliance-2022-02.pdf which was sent out just two weeks before “thou shall not sell!”
I get that OLCC needs these off the shelf…but as a producer, WTF do you do when dispensaries won’t return product that isn’t legal to sell?
edit: and this was really the first bulletin sent on on the subject: https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/Documents/Bulletins/Compliance_2021_04.pdf
which was posted here when it came out: New OLCC rules for artificially derived cannabinoids and CRC
5 Likes
Gotcha. This is a great explan. Thank you
1 Like
Is there any way to definitively differentiate between a batch of synthetic CBC and a batch of “alternatively-derived” CBC?
For example: Are the non-CBC cannabinoid minors in a batch of CBC produced via conversion different from the non-CBC cannabinoid minors in a batch of CBC produced via bona fide macromolecular synthesis?
For example: It seems to me that a non-trivial volume of CBC prodcued via a bona fide macromolecular synthesis would be far far more expensive than an equivalent volume of CBC produced via macromolecular conversion. If true, the price alone might help to differentiate between a bona fide “synthetic” CBC from an equal-sized batch of “alternatively-derived” CBC.
Other ideas here?
1 Like