In cannabis you can always expect lawmakers to make decisions from the perspective of a Caucasian suburban housewife. Gonna be a lot of dark oil. Not fun for the already struggling oil manufacturer. I can’t imagine going back to being at the mercy of the cultivator to produce light resin. Not a great business model.
4 Likes
Fair assessment.
It had to be a two years ago now on a webinar where Dr. John MacKay first used the term “magic sand”. Bret Puffenbarger was moderating and jumped on it and we had a hashtag.
2 Likes
Yep and it’s shameful.
1 Like
The other thing is what about remediation from mold or mildew? Isn’t processing for concentrates in the rec and med market theoretically used for trim and material that’s not really all that suitable for smoking in the first place?
Is the CRC not going to be used for inline cleaning?
The CRC isn’t in my arsenal but certain powders should be used for certain applications.
The cleaner the better.
2 Likes
These are the clowns that defined “non hydrocarbon ethanol”…
the enzymatic extracts of fresh Trichomes are “catalytic”.
will readily convert CBGA to THCA…
so an aqueous marijuana extract itself should be banned under these concepts.
Moreover, some how OLCC does not get it: THC IS NOT NATURAL
to the plant…it requires the catalytic action of sunlight or heat.
OLCC you are already hip deep in shit! Perhaps OLCC outlets should only sell cannabinoic acids…
If only OLCC would reveal the name and credentials of their consulting
staff chemist…what…what…they don’t have one…they just make this shit up?
3 Likes
fast response:
so CRC away, just don’t fuck up your cannabinoid profile in a detectable manner…
37 Likes
The fact that they’re regulating basic chromatography is really discouraging.
There is SO much more to CRC than bleaching clays causing a bit of conversion.
4 Likes
see above…
5 Likes
Get yaself a reputable lab to lest your shit. 
I think everyone is perhaps too concerned about the scope of the law. Enforcement happens upon testing positive for those isomers, and it says nothing about explicitly prohibiting CRC, just CRC that generates detectable levels of delta-8 and 9
7 Likes
it is quite obvious they have never heard of a Langmuir Isotherm…
and confuse selective surface adsorption (static or dynamic) with
surface catalysis.
Yup it is back to CO2 as a hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon ethanol…
2 Likes
You can make diamonds and crystals with etoh.
1 Like
@cyclopath 's updated post sheds a bit of light on this issue. Seems everything will be fine as far as D9 remediation is concerned.
3 Likes
The rules specifically prohibit “artificially derived cannabinoids,” meaning " a chemical substance that is created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of any chemical substance derived from the plant Cannabis."
you are hip deep in shit with THC
1 Like
I think Paul Swift at chemhistory is the consulting chemist, I know they use his lab at keast
1 Like
Steven Crowley
Hemp and Processing Specialist
Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (OLCC)
Should we assume it is Dr. Crowley, Ph.D.?
How much do they pay you? Public information, please share.
nope.
feel free to use the posted email address to ask Steven those questions
yep. that was my reading too…
…and by asking the AHJ, we have that this is the correct interpretation.
6 Likes
It probably only applies to metal oxides. Silica wouldn’t fall under that category, but b80, t5, t41, alumina would.
2 Likes
Why didnt they just say the first time haha completely contradictory.
The rules specifically prohibit “artificially derived cannabinoids,” meaning " a chemical substance that is created by a chemical reaction that changes the molecular structure of any chemical substance derived from the plant Cannabis." - Wouldn’t decarbing fall into this category, too?
3 Likes
what is more “artificially derived” than THC?
heating
or for that matter freezing the living or freshly harvested material…
is artificial. ?
perfect way to destroy an industry…regulations
2 Likes