New OLCC rules for artificially derived cannabinoids and CRC

TLDR version for those who don’t like long internet drivel.

@envee has mistaken my statement about the simplicity of decarb & isomerization chemistry for a statement on the ethical morality of performing said chemistry. I tried to correct his mistaken notion… for the third time, I believe.

He also mistook my agreement with his ethics as some kind of argument. I also tried to correct his mistaken notion about that.

If he still doesn’t get it, and he cannot just let this go, then he is definitely just trolling… regardless of his being offended by that notion, he will have given it veracity by expressing any further “outrage”, feigned though it may be.

4 Likes

I haven’t confused a thing, since the beginning of my “triade” you have attempted to back me into a corner blanketed by literature to cover your ass because what you said was factually incorrect, i appreciate the subtle admission of that.

Bah bah bah bah, the implication was there and you know this, you were justifing the chemistry… as a ‘natural’ process.

I never touched on this, my entire argument has been that these processes aren’t natural and the creation, was done by a human, not by nature and this notion is of significant importance when determining what should and shouldn’t be sold for consumer consumption when it comes to cannabis products.

Interesting… when you told me i was misguided and misinterpreting the discussion i never knew you were actually agreeing with me, i wonder why i didn’t pick up on that…

Whole lotta verbal nonsense to describe “projection”, not that i was doing that but i can understand why you would paint it as such a behavior, favors you.

Primum non nocere! I was never worried of harm coming from this as i knew i was correct from the start, apparently i struggled to express that and furthermore i struggled to understand your agreement with it, bizzare?

Sure… we’ll go with that, i could unpack the paragraphs you’ve written and dissect this further… i need not as long as we’re on the same page and it appears you’re actively agreeing that the isomerization of cannabinoids for human consumption is likely harmful for the consumer; it was my entire point (the process isn’t natural and the products are harmful) and your agreeance with my ethics is a pleasure to share.

(Even if we don’t agree with your philosophy of all things natural, as long as we agree the products made from this chemistry shouldn’t be consumed by humankind, i can let this die).

Oh man! I came to this conversation late. Shame. @envee may I ask you if you believe vitamins are somehow healthier if having been first extracted and isolated from a plant first?

1 Like

Is it just me or are you wishy washy on your stance within just a few lines? likely then are within just a few lines.

Envee, You seem somewhat intelligent.
Have you studied the Lie groups and Lie Algebras?
Have you ever read Reimann’s Ph.D presentation (Habilitation) supervised and attended by Gauss?
Imagine trying to impress Gauss with your cleverness.
You will never guess what Reimann did.
If you haven’t it would certainly benefit you more than this misdirected rant. There is nothing to achieve here; there is none to impress.
Logocentrism is not an admirable trait.

You’re good to go.

3 Likes

The science says likely, my opinion guided by intuition and knowledge, says they are.

The subject is difficult to prove without a great deal of clinical study and trial BUT there is enough evidence currently to suggest likely harmful opposed to safe for consumption.

That’s where my mental conflict of choice words comes from.

The intention wasn’t to impress, i don’t wish harm on anyone especially from the use of a “cannabis” product.

It was wrong of @Photon_noir to suggest products of isomerization guided by the human hand are “natural”, that’s all i was trying to express while steadily tripping over my own words (something I’m quite good at).

Lots of people here respect and follow what he says both online and offline, what he said here was very wrong. There is no avoiding that truth.

I really like you @moronnabis and the way you think but you make my brain hurt. You’re going to reference lie group and lie algebra… an instance of mathematics… where in mathematics there is rules, there is nothing but definitive truths marked by definitive words.

You then follow that up by suggesting that logocentrism is a bad trait to posess when it’s philosophical fundamental representation is just that… definitive truths… definitive words…

" Taken from the Greek, the word logos can simply be translated as “word”, but in philosophy, it often signifies an ultimate principle of truth or reason "

The unification (based solely on the definitive truth) of all definitions (there should only be a singluar definitive description of one said truth) of all things written or spoken is something i do believe in, admirable or not, it makes irrefutable logical sense and sets very strict parameters for mental exercise performed in any manner, it yields results. I might not express it very well but this “philosophical” mindset is what allows for me to learn as quick as i do, in short, it allows for me to understand what is bullshit and what isn’t bullshit.

I haven’t read Reimann’s Ph.D presentation, but i will as i always learn something from you. Thank you for the wonderful suggestion.

1 Like

the word LOGOS also has a pun meaning.
Council of Nicaea: In the beginning was LOGOS and LOGOS was God. Mani is who you want to look up.
His group was so clever with words they were labeled as heretic and told to leave town in 24 hrs.

I’m trying to point you toward Postmodernism and the deconstructivism of Derrida…thus the criticism of logocentrism.

You’re off track on the subject of Photon…you simply are.
He is a complete gentleman-intellectual. He deserves respect. I am sure you can contribute to this forum in other forms.

Quo Vadis?

BTW: In 1854 for the first 5 minutes or so Riemann laid out the foundations of Relativity Theory in his Habilitation talk. He sprung the idea on Gauss to get his attention, and then digressed to saying…but that is just something for the physicists to deal with in the future, today we are here to talk about real mathematics. That is my recollection anyways…please don’t quote me.

3 Likes

@envee … Were this a medicinal chemistry forum where I was addressing an audience of professional chemists and physicians for critique of my own written study on the subject of something like “Semisynthetic THC Isomers: Safety & Efficacy in Mammalian Medical Subjects,” here is one of the works I would cite as a reference:

An efficient new cannabinoid antiemetic in pediatric oncology A Abrahamov et al. Life Sci. 1995.

I also recommend you read up on the medical science of cannabinoids–semisynthetic (in vitro) and biosynthetic (in vivo); both made from phytogenic (plant-derived) precursors—in general, to educate yourself on the subject before making blanket statements regarding unspecified hazards of THC isomers to human health. Here is a source of Cannabis information assembled for doctors (with a link for a patients’ version) in oncology, for example:

Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version

“Delta-8 THC (or delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol) is a naturally occurring chemical compound… Nearly all the delta-8 you can buy is made in labs with cannabidiol (CBD) from hemp plants along with several chemicals… Harmful chemicals could be used to make them or created during the process.”
–WebMD: Delta-8 THC: What You Need to Know About This Cannabinoid

Some of the language I snipped out of that WebMD quote is fallaciously argumentative (i.e., fear-mongering, imo):
“It’s much more potent than the delta-8 found in nature”… because it is concentrated, just like any extract or pharmaceutical, for that matter, although this makes no difference whatsoever in its relative safety or hazard.

“Because the FDA doesn’t regulate the chemical process to make delta-8, these products aren’t tested for safety or quality”… While this is a genuine problem, it is not caused by the lack of FDA oversight. It is caused by the lack of ANY oversight in states that outright ban the isomers and analogues for sale in the legal marketplace, because that excludes their producers from access to State regulated testing labs.

Therefore, it is exactly these sorts of “bans without education” that CREATE the most hazardous derivative drugs! Apparently they learned nothing in this regard from Cannabis Prohibition! :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

Fear of the unknown is NOT a justification to halt exploration altogether!

6 Likes

Sounds like you need a red hot dab of a gas station THCp/THCjd cart mix

3 Likes

Ahahahaha!!! :rofl: I will certainly “take one for the team” when I think it will help to educate the public through my experience, @pdxcanna … but I think your suggestion would be more “stunt” than “erudition,” especially since I’ve developed the dreaded hyperemesis syndrome from Δ9-THC—although not when I take Δ8-THC, strangely enough—in the first place! :face_vomiting::face_vomiting::face_vomiting::face_vomiting::face_vomiting:

Edit:
Wait… wtf is THCjd? Cannabis & whiskey?

3 Likes

That is a great question

@kcalabs any insights on what’s actually in the stuff marketed at THCjd?

3 Likes

Most protic solvents will potentiate decarb. You can observe on the bench every which way if you care to, but no literature that Ive seen.

THCA in heptane vs alcohols at room temp you’ll see decarb over the course of a few days. Trend continues with application of heat. Give it a shot.

6 Likes

It is the C8 alkyl chain length THC homolog.

We call it THC-C8 since JD leads to questions like @Photon_noir’s. I believe JD is the chemist’s name.

We’ve tested samples at high purity, but rarely see it in commercial products.

6 Likes

You went from nothing is unnatural to “Here’s what my hypothetical presentation on semi-synthetic THC isomers would look like”:

Now you’re addressing the subject correctly, they are not naturally occuring, they are semi-synthetic (the FDA claims fully synthetic, the term used is synthetic conversion) and that is what all eyes watching this need to see, especially coming from you…

Since you fear i as an individual entity lack education… I’ll reference the FDA directly and you can evaluate their opinion of the “unspecified hazards of THC isomers” as it is evident you have deamed my opinion to be of insignificance to you.

FDA ASSESSMENT OF Δ8-THC

Human Consumption Disclaimer - " The FDA is aware of the growing concerns surrounding delta-8 THC products currently being sold online and in stores. These products have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safe use in any context. "

Medicinal Efficacy Disclaimer - The FDA is concerned by the proliferation of products that contain delta-8 THC and are marketed for therapeutic or medical uses, although they have not been approved by the FDA. Selling unapproved products with unsubstantiated therapeutic claims is not only a violation of federal law, but also can put consumers at risk, as these products have not been proven to be safe or effective. This deceptive marketing of unproven treatments raises significant public health concerns because patients and other consumers may use them instead of approved therapies to treat serious and even fatal diseases.

Adverse Events Reports - The FDA received 104 reports of adverse events in patients who consumed delta-8 THC products between December 1, 2020, and February 28, 2022. Of these 104 adverse event reports:

  • 77% involved adults, 8% involved pediatric patients less than 18 years of age, and 15% did not report age.

  • 55% required intervention (e.g., evaluation by emergency medical services) or hospital admission.

  • 66% described adverse events after ingestion of delta-8 THC-containing food products (e.g., brownies, gummies).

  • Adverse events included, but were not limited to: hallucinations, vomiting, tremor, anxiety, dizziness, confusion, and loss of consciousness.

Poison Control Center Reports - National poison control centers received 2,362 exposure cases of delta-8 THC products between January 1, 2021 (i.e., date that delta-8 THC product code was added to database), and February 28, 2022. Of the 2,362 exposure cases:

  • 58% involved adults, 41% involved pediatric patients less than 18 years of age, and 1% did not report age.

  • 40% involved unintentional exposure to delta-8 THC and 82% of these unintentional exposures affected pediatric patients.

  • 70% required health care facility evaluation, of which 8% resulted in admission to a critical care unit; 45% of patients requiring health care facility evaluation were pediatric patients.

  • One pediatric case was coded with a medical outcome of death.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/

In my (as @Photon_noir suggests) uneducated opinion Δ8-THC is likely safe when it’s extracted directly from cannabis, i would imagine what the FDA is failing to mention (they love fear mongering) is that 100% of the cases they’ve assessed involving Δ8-THC, is that all of the Δ8-THC in these cases originated from converted materials, I would argue the adverse effects are likely due to contaminates and byproducts… not the Δ8-THC itself.

I never insinuated that all research should be halted.

Conversions are poison.

Conversions destined for human consumption should be outlawed.

You sell converted cannabinoids?

You belong in federal prison and soon enough this will be the reality.

Not that I disagree with your post entirely, but you are so far out of your depth arguing semantics with photon lol

5 Likes

Envee, You understand that ad hominem is the lowest and most crass form of criticism. Your argument is well constructed…why resort to the ad hominem? You do understand that you demean yourself in this manner.
You seem smart but you do not seem “street smart”.
Are you accustomed to the odd felony now and then?
Just curious.
I would be the last to inquire about the visual meme that accompanies your name. If it is meant to be a sardonic joke it is at best “strange”. If you are somewhat serious, there are a couple fellows on board that may find you a “match made in Heaven”.
image

What I mean by sardonic.

Because i can.

As if i care about how the majority of people here (or people anywhere for that matter) view me, I’ll do what i am destined to do and achieve what i intend to without a single care for the opinions of others, i came here with “then” questions and had many answered… my “now” questions, nobody here can answer them (or anywhere for that matter)… i have to answer them myself which is to be expected when the intention is to innovate… invenire magis

As for this disaster of paragraphs i’m never above pointing out absolute bullshit… @Photon_noir claiming synthetics are natural because humans made them and humans are natural and therefore nothing constructed or produced by humans can be unnatural is the most ridiculous thing i’ve seen on this entire forum and I’ve scrubbed this place for information for countless hours attempting to answer the questions i have and I’ve seen a lot of nonsensical claims throughout my sifts but this one topped the list.

This is accurate.

Only counts if you’re caught… right?

Many get hung up on the name, ENV.E.E, ENVisioning Engineered Excellence.

I don’t think so but to be fair he’s more than double my age. There will be clear differences, mostly in maturity and even i see how apparent that is it. He’s spent many many years formulating the way he builds and structures his arguments, in a professional environment to boot… i have not… renders me into a position where i will appear the fool… experience is a cruel but effective teacher.

I’m done replying to these though, my bother was that someone tried to claim cannabis products created by isomerization are natural.

He’s addressed them as semi-synthetic, that’s all i wanted, I’ll exit stage left and go waste my time elsewhere…

Fast 180…

Define Synthetic: 1.
(of a substance) made by chemical synthesis, especially to imitate a natural product.

Cheers…I’m off to learn… moreso, to discover!

1 Like

Keep sucking you own dick lol.

4 Likes

I agree that everything is natural. Nature = The Universe and everything in it. One shouldn’t say “synthetic” vs “natural” but rather “synthetic vs extracted from living organism”. Being nonliving isn’t less natural than being living. A rock or a petroleum reserve are natural as a plant.

3 Likes

I mean, isn’t this why chemistry is usually denoted as “organic” and “inorganic”? Either it’s carbon-based, or it isn’t.

1 Like