Hemp derived CBD vs recreational derived CBD

[Gokugonemad2]

I’m currently using some industrial hemp-derived oral CBD oil, with mixed results. The stuff is nice enough, works well when used on its own, but it seems to fight with any THC that is subsequently taken. It leaves u with a f**ked up Frankenstein kind of stone which is not satisfying at all. It also has a (less prominent) negative interaction with benzos and opiates. I have no doubts that this is a result of CBD blocking the pleasure/reward/dopamine receptors, which I have read about.

 

So as I kind of expected, you can’t trick ur body into thinking u’ve been taking a strain with a balanced ratio of thc:cbd. The 1:1 stuff I was previously taking was completely seamless, the thc and cbd got along just fine. All part of the entourage effect or what not I guess.

 

My gut instinct tells me that a strain like cannatonic or AC/DC (1:20 thc:cbd or thereabouts) will beat the hemp-derived cbd hands down, in all areas concerned. I envision more terpenes present and I reckon the small increase in thc content would improve everything, and round off the sometimes hard edge of straight cbd (for me it’s often a little racey/stimulating),

 

Anybody have any experience with this? Have u compared both types? Happy to be told I’m wrong, even happier to confirm that I’m right but any light shed on this situation would be absolute gold. Once again I don’t see much genuine conversation about this stuff online. Cheers guys

[Ford Fairlane]

These are a better option than alpha cat imo

 

http://www.thctestkits.com/

[Gokugonemad2]

Yeah I had better say for the record that Valium is not a good drug. I’ve had to take it periodically when I’ve lost access to canna meds. Not to mention the strong need for codeine (pain relief) and cravings for alcohol and tobacco..and I don’t even smoke cigarettes. That’s what I end up pumping myself with when there’s no weed available, and that’s not withdrawals, I know what withdrawals are and that’s separate..that’s just simply showing how unwell I feel without canna, days weeks and even months after not having any weed. One decent hit of weed and I have no need for all the other government garbage.

 

Thanks Ford for the suggestion of the other kit. And if anyone still has some idea about hemp cbd vs recreational cbd ie. cannatonic or AC/DC, would love to know. Peace

[itchybromusic]

sweet thanks ford 

have to have a look at that one 

[Ford Fairlane]

Cannatonic is a 1:1 strain I believe. AFAIK when making oil for cancer reduction it is a good idea to mix it with a high thc strain, of which there are plenty to choose from. I think trying to hit a ratio of 4:1 thc:cbd has been succseful for some patients. I know of a brain cancer sufferer who had excelent results with a mix made of big bud and couchlock ie. While using that mix his cancer reduced in size significantly. This is of course only an anecdote and not a significance result in the big picture.

[Gokugonemad2]

Wow lots of synchronicity going on here. I actually had a CT head scan over the weekend to check for brain tumours/cancers or whatever else. Got the results last night, all clear so at least I know I’m simply dealing with inflammation and pain, temples predominately but often neck/shoulders also. I had been using what I think was oil made from critical kush, it was made with cancer patients in mind and for tumour reduction etc. really really nice stuff, I was using it recreationally but I liked it a bit too much, especially since there was just enough cbd in the profile to keep u off the couch (ie. chores are fun ). For me that’s not a good thing because I don’t want something so heavy to become integrated with my daily routines. And now I know I don’t have any growths or tumours, I’m gonna steer clear.

 

Good call I shouldn’t be dropping cannatonics name as a 1:20 when that is just one possible phenotype, it just happened to be the one I had read most about. It does seem to have a 1:1 pheno, and just had a quick look at leafly .com and they reckon it’s somewhere in between. But yeah anything around 1:20 has me curious, especially because the thc content is generally around 0.3% for those strains. Which is obviously the cut off point they decided on in the 1930s or whatever, to set apart the hemp from the cannabis. I’m curious if the 0.3% thc was picked arbitrarily...or if something happens with the plant and it’s effect at that point, something the guys in the white coats new about in the 30’s. I suspect the latter.

[Ford Fairlane]

I don't think the hemp varieties were bred in the 30's. Phil Warner, an aussie, has had a fair bit to do with selective breeding to produce some of the Australian low thc cannabis sativa and he isn't that old...

[Gokugonemad2]

Cheers mate I stand corrected, I thought the ‘reefer madness’ propaganda from the 30’s is also when they drew the line at 0.3%.

 

“Where did the 0.3 percent THC figure come from? It stems from a 1976 taxonomic report by Canadian plant scientists Ernest Small and Arthur Cronquist, who never intended for 0.3 percent THC to function as a legal demarcation between hemp and other forms of cannabis.“ - projectcbd.org

 

So it was sometime after the late 70s. Maybe even not so long ago. I’m gonna check out this Mr. Warner, thanks mate

[Ford Fairlane]

Good info, thanks for the quote. Will be interesting to read small and cronquists report. I have no specific dates, but if you are looking into it, It'd be great if you could share your results on the subject. Some good questions being raised

[Ford Fairlane]

 

Free to read online. I beleive this research is under scrutiny, or being shown to be innacurate at the moment due to advanves in gene research methods.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1220524?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

Variation in Cannabis is evaluated in the context of the confusing systematic history of this genus. Aside from some experimentally produced polyploids, all Cannabis is diploid (n = 10), and there appear to be no barriers to successful hybridization within the genus. The present pattern of variation is due in large part to the influence of man. Two widespread classes of plant are discernible: a group of generally northern plants of relatively limited intoxicant potential, influenced particularly by selection for fibre and oil agronomic qualities, and a group of generally southern plants of considerable intoxicant potential, influenced particularly by selection for inebriant qualities. These two groups are treated respectively as subsp. sativa and indica, of C. sativa, the only species of the genus Cannabis. Within each subspecies two parallel phases are recognizable. The "wild" (weedy, naturalized or indigenous) phase is more or less distinguishable from the domesticated (cultivated or spontaneous) phase by means of an adaptive syndrome of fruit characteristics. The resulting four discernible groups are recognized as varieties

[Gokugonemad2]

That’s really interesting. I read as much as I could from that study before it prompted me to sign in to view the rest. I will get there. What I gleaned from it though is that all Cannabis..indica, sativa, and a pair of sub-species for each of those..they might mention ruderalis later...but all Cannabis for all intents and purposes are the same plant with variable properties. They are all sexually compatible with each other no matter how different the appearance, cannabinoid profiles and original physical locales. I think this fact may be frequently overlooked. I mean, if a 20 ft tall tropical sativa can f**k with a 2 ft tall Siberian ruderalis...why can’t crows bang with magpies? No AFL puns intended.

 

The quote I supplied before, I didn’t have time to read the entire page but I am now. It’s full of good stuff.

 

https://www.projectcbd.org/sobre-cbd/cannabis-facts/sourcing-cbd-marijuana-industrial-hemp-vagaries-federal-law

 

“Products with heavily processed “pure” CBD derived from industrial hemp lack the full spectrum of aromatic terpenes and other cannabinoids found in high-resin drug plants. These compounds interact synergistically with CBD and THC to enhance their therapeutic effects. Scientific research shows that whole plant CBD-rich cannabis oil has a broader range of therapeutic attributes and greater therapeutic efficacy than single-molecule CBD.” -projectcbd.org

 

That webpage mentions that industrial hemp typically has low resin content with many inferior/odd shaped trichomes. The selective breeding programs would presumably search for the most robust plants/stalks for which to make the best pulp, with no real focus on terpenes or any medicinal benefits. I take it that because there’s a plethora of these farms already across Europe etc, the low and mid-grade cbd oil companies are using these types of genetics. Maybe even the top shelf pure cbd oil comes from these kinds of plants.

 

Then there’s the ‘high resin drug plants’ as they call them, aka ACDC etc. The selective breeding for these was geared toward high resin production. Broader spectrum of cannabinoids. The terpene content is higher, if for no other reason than the breeder liking the smell of a particular cultivar or 3 and continuing with those for cloning. I strongly believe that at a primal level, we all know what’s good for us by how things taste and even more so by how they smell (olfactory). And then u also have the fact that it was never necessary to keep thc content below 0.3%, as per the hemp rules, so u’ve got a sometimes slightly elevated thc content which would do what it does best, and also help with the synergy of cannabinoids and overall entourage effect.

 

I think I/we are starting to get somewhere with all of this.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Gokugonemad2