Right…, now this is the fun part of make it make sense.
Now the question i have for the argument you’ve presented:
“synthetic” vs “natural” but rather “synthetic vs extracted from living organism”
Is this… is there a difference between how the living organism synthesized the target compound (the natural method) and the synthesis used in conversion (in this case, isomerization).
Is there a difference?
Can you show me the isomerization of CBD into D8-THC in nature that occurs without the aid of humankind?
On top of that, if you can show me how the natural synthesis of D8-THC is identical to the conversion of CBD into D8-THC.
I’ll agree all things are natural if you can answer this.
But that is a fallacy, because humankind is part of nature.
IMO your question is like somebody saying “Meet me over at the concert venue” and your question is “did you get there by bus, or by car” – the destination is what matters not the route you took to get to it.
I assume you agree, a molecule is a molecule. If two samples of D8, from two different methods, are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT pure, then the universe cannot tell the difference between them. There isn’t some spiritual virtue that changes how a molecule acts based on where it came from.
If your concern is impurities, then the compound, produced via a specific synthetic method, should have to pass “phase 1”-type trials to demonstrate it’s safety, including whatever impurities it might have within it. It should have to do that, honestly, whether it’s extracted from a plant or not (after all, there are many plant compounds that are poisonous).
Carbon based compounds were called organic because 19th century chemists thought only living things made carbon compounds. This proved to be incorrect and now we know carbon compounds are formed by all sorts of physical processes not involving a living being.
Yes humankind is apart of nature, the things we create are of humankind, not of nature.
Nature didn’t do it. A human did. It is no longer a natural occurrence.
The fact we can separate ourselves from nature is solely the “thing” that makes us special.
PRECISELY THIS.
How you got there matters, this is the importance of “did we do it or did the plant do it” and which is better.
I trust the plant knows what it’s
doing.
I trust that the plants work being extracted and isolated is of higher quality and purity than that of any chemist performing isomerization (there is a great deal of human error associated with both).
I agree completely, the problem being humans are incapable of producing “pure” in regard to this subject and I’ve stressed this before, furthermore we are incapable of testing for purity.
We haven’t unlocked the technology to do so, without error and with 100% accuracy.
I disagree. We don’t need to demonstrate anything is 100% pure. We just need to demonstrate that the product, as a whole including it’s impurities, passes safety tests. Through animal models, human trial, etc.
I think weed is safe, not because it’s natural, but because it has 100s of years of such safety data… hemlock and pufferfish are also natural, but they have a much worse safety record. LSD is synthetic but much safer than bio-derived tetradotoxin. What matters is just the question: IS THE PREPARATION SAFE, based on real data, not on any suppositions about whether it’s natural or whether I trust it.
I agree people should not be making never before tried synthetic chemicals and then feed them to people. 100% agreement on that. But not because their synthetic – because they’ve had no safety testing. They should go through the same safety testing all legal pharmaceuticals have to go through.
We do when contaminates are a concern, we definitely need to be able demonstrate “they are 100% NOT there”.
Especially if the contaminates/impurities in question have proven to be significantly harmful.
Safety is of course a concern, but a product of this nature (something derieved from cannabis intended for inhalation via combustion/vaporization 99% of the time) is inherently unsafe and damaging to begin with, even if the damage is miniscule.
Minimization of those damages is important nonetheless.
Anyways… none of this was the topic of discussion though, it was “nothing is unnatural” and your attempt at providing information supporting that all things are natural.
If that was the case you wouldn’t even be open to smoking flower, because that produces a host of compounds known to be dangerous, in the abstract, and not present in the plant in it’s unburned form (soot, basically). I on the other hand am very comfortable because I know from the long use history that these don’t appear to do anything that worries me (safety testing!)
As far as everything is natural, I still agree with that. Nature = space and time, the universe. If it obeys the laws of nature then it is part of nature.
I’ve been talking about the use of words and their definitions, specifically the incorrect use of said words and how they’re being used in an attempt to justify some disgusting for-profit fuckery.
Isomerizations of cannabinoids in a lab isn’t a natural fucking phenomenon and they do not produce natural products.
Define Nature:
the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations
The brilliant minds at Oxford agree, humans and what we do isn’t natural.
I deal with certain kinds of people a lot. I like to call it nicely as spamming you with nonsense. It kinda never stops until you add some hurt feels into the mix.
Oxford University published the O.E.D (Oxford English Dictionary), a multitude of brilliant minds (far smarter than these chemists on a drug forum) put this dictionary together, it is world renowned for being the most complete and most accurate compilation of the English language in it’s entirety.
This is why google and all instances of their plugins/applications use the O.E.D as the default for defining any given word.
The O.E.D definition is always the trusted definition.
Still Oxford, which is why Harvard uses it. There is a reason why literally everyone of any intellectual significance uses it to reference the meaning of words.
Merriam-Webster has that stupid “America #1” complex, they won’t even acknowledge British English vs American English, which is why they have assbackwards definitions that do not match that of the O.E.D (take this from someone who has countlessly argued the semantics of the two) even though both are derived from the same lexicon, M-W refuses to acknowledge British English as a standard format, they make up their own definitions opposed to establishing a common collective of the two lol.
On top of that, Oxford University started teaching hundreds of years before America was even established as a country lol, Americas top universities (canada included) default to the O.E.D, if you can’t grasp that… personal problem.
How interesting this conversation about definitions has gotten.
Lucky for us in the US the government has defined this idea of “synthetic” or “non-organic” when talking about things going into humans or veterinary products when they decided to come up with a crazy language around “organic” (not to be confused with organic chemistry) food and food stuffs.
There is a whole set of final rules and associated statutes that governs this in the US (the rest of the world has their own rules which are slightly different…but also completely unrelated to chemistry with their own unique definition of “natural processes”, “organic”, and “synthetic”) and so we could be discussing what is happen in Oregon within the rules of the hemp program, within the rules of the USDA, within the rules of the FDA via the HHS.
If we did that - our colloquial and oxford and merriam-webster definitions seem to all go out the window.
From the very wordy parts of text which are relevant to what is being discussed by the OLCC rules - because those things are going into humans and they are using the terms as defined by the program, which is a sub-program of the FDA and USDA regarding food and hemp products (and now randomly cannabis products and booze and what not as well…because REASONS!)
Which again - goes back to the definitions that are used in these departments to talk about the differences in what would be allowed in “organic” aka “natural” products. Is this what they mean in the new OLCC rule? Seems like in context that this is possible.
Which is why I proposed being specific about your processes - saying if they are synthetic or not based on the decision tree. If they are non-synthetic based on this decision tree - then with the very unique definitions by the USDA on this - you could lean into that, perhaps in this conversation.
Especially since doing things all natural would using this definition mean any of the products that came from it would be non-synthetic. -shrug-
Is it or is not allowed to undergo chemical change by the means of a naturally occuring biological process?
Edit: I just noticed “non-organic materials”, why would they shove this right beneath the tree?
Now I’m extra confused.
Wild lol.
Anyways… if this decision tree becomes the standard of scrutiny in the difference between natural/synthetic, it falls inline with the definition on the O.E.D, for what is and isn’t natural. I’d argue it’s sensible and accurate (minus the contradiction…? lol).
I feel they need to specify further on what chemical changes are defined as natural/synthetic/artificial and most importantly outline what is and isn’t allowed based on those parameters in a clear, comprehensive manner.
Regardless, I’m glad the governing bodies appear to be aware that all things are not natural and their independent definitions of each appear to be accurate and inline with what i was preaching, thankfully they’re not using Merriam-Webster lol.
