Same here. A funny story. My friend was a dispensary while on vacation. The woman in front of him said to the clerk, "I've been buying your highest THC strains. Do you have anything that will actually get me high?"
Simon
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Why is THC % in weed is still misrepresented ?
- Thread starter nohnsmith1010
- Start date
Same here. A funny story. My friend was a dispensary while on vacation. The woman in front of him said to the clerk, "I've been buying your highest THC strains. Do you have anything that will actually get me high?"
Simon
Switcher56
Comfortably numb!
Just like it's not the length of the dick that does the trick, it's the throb of the know that does the job!
THC is only one component to the complete "entourage" effect!
THC is only one component to the complete "entourage" effect!
Has anyone checked the cannabinoid levels in prepackaged pot to see if it matches the label? It should be clear to many that you can smoke a gram of THC - with or without any ''entourage'' - and not be higher than a couple bong hits. Has anyone tried smoking much less pot or mixing it with something? It's hard for me to stop at a bong hit. Even then, maybe a hit of high dose THC causes it to form an insoluble film somewhere, a barrier to getting higher. It would be interesting to see how high the blood levels of cannabinoids can go for someone by smoking, to see if there is a hard limit, and if there is a difference in metabolism with high doses. It's the same with red and green vein kratom, people say this is speedy and that's sedative, when the actual difference is in the amount of alkaloids - the speedy kratom having less.
nohnsmith1010
Member
yes
yes
and that is why they should have accurate labeling for each of those compounds
yes
and that is why they should have accurate labeling for each of those compounds
Thesearch
Active member
I suggest posting about this on future 4200, it is a lot more focused towards people who do these tests.
That said, I question the strength of this argument for a few reasons.
1. The quote given to support the idea that the THC percent is of the extract and not of the overall weight only tells us the opinion of someone that flower thc concentrations should be lower then the observed thc level of an extract. it doesn't tell us that this was supposed to be a test for flower thc percentage by weight, but it was actually of the thc percentage by weight of the extract of the flower.
2. Why would someone design such an obvious flaw into the test and why would every lab technician go along with this without ever raising it to the attention of people?
3. If the only thing accounted for is the resin and what is in the resin, why do they record moisture levels on the test results?
4. Extractors typically get 10-25% return using butane on flower, from what I have seen, the end result being 65-85% THC by weight shatter. so say 75% of 17.5% would assume 13.125% flower source average, assuming the extraction is 100% efficient. Taking into consideration a less then 100% efficient extraction would mean the average would be higher. these commonly observed numbers do not line up with the ones presented here by the OP
5. The first link posted to support the claim on the HPLC procedure (I could find nothing to support it on the page) also talks about other THC percent by weight tests including Near Infrared (NIR) and had this to say, which is more in line with everything else I have observed and read previously:
"Near infrared (NIR) has been used with cannabis for rapid identification of active pharmaceutical ingredients by measuring how much light different substances reflect. Cannabis is typically composed of 5-30% cannabinoids (mainly THC and CBD) and 5-15% water. Cannabinoid content can vary by over 5% (e.g. 13-18%) on a single plant, and even more if grown indoors. Multiple NIR measurements can be cost effective for R&D purposes. NIR does not use solvents and has a speed advantage of at least 50 times over traditional methods."
quote from Cannabis Industry Journal
I do not do HPLC tests though, so I'm not an expert, and would recommend asking the people at future 4200 about this.
That said, I question the strength of this argument for a few reasons.
1. The quote given to support the idea that the THC percent is of the extract and not of the overall weight only tells us the opinion of someone that flower thc concentrations should be lower then the observed thc level of an extract. it doesn't tell us that this was supposed to be a test for flower thc percentage by weight, but it was actually of the thc percentage by weight of the extract of the flower.
2. Why would someone design such an obvious flaw into the test and why would every lab technician go along with this without ever raising it to the attention of people?
3. If the only thing accounted for is the resin and what is in the resin, why do they record moisture levels on the test results?
4. Extractors typically get 10-25% return using butane on flower, from what I have seen, the end result being 65-85% THC by weight shatter. so say 75% of 17.5% would assume 13.125% flower source average, assuming the extraction is 100% efficient. Taking into consideration a less then 100% efficient extraction would mean the average would be higher. these commonly observed numbers do not line up with the ones presented here by the OP
5. The first link posted to support the claim on the HPLC procedure (I could find nothing to support it on the page) also talks about other THC percent by weight tests including Near Infrared (NIR) and had this to say, which is more in line with everything else I have observed and read previously:
"Near infrared (NIR) has been used with cannabis for rapid identification of active pharmaceutical ingredients by measuring how much light different substances reflect. Cannabis is typically composed of 5-30% cannabinoids (mainly THC and CBD) and 5-15% water. Cannabinoid content can vary by over 5% (e.g. 13-18%) on a single plant, and even more if grown indoors. Multiple NIR measurements can be cost effective for R&D purposes. NIR does not use solvents and has a speed advantage of at least 50 times over traditional methods."
quote from Cannabis Industry Journal
I do not do HPLC tests though, so I'm not an expert, and would recommend asking the people at future 4200 about this.
Don't believe everyone's loud proclamations of chemistry knowledge, there most of all. You want to talk to chromatographers, go to chromforum. To add to my last point - no one here doubts tolerance to pot. No one understands the why of it either. So why should it be a surprise that high THC pot isn't all that and you can't break through. For sure more THC isn't the answer. You can't go back home - all the great pot is always stuff you can't get anymore. It's the same with MDMA, everyone thinks there must have been some big difference back in the day - maybe impurities being the entourage since pure MDMA just doesn't have the magic anymore they say, even though it's been well known for 35 years that this always soon happens.
