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

[Rake]

I’ve actually got the nightingale growing as well, started it first but then got the sativa strain which is more 1:1 so decided to order candida and give that a go so know for sure I’ll have 20:1 instead of popping and other nightingale and taking a gamble.

[tonka14]

Hey guys, I've been following this thread and thought you might be interested in this  https://tcheck.me/    

Not too sure how legit it is but seems perfect.

[Allotropy]

 

For all you crazy people out there.... They are now trialing CBD as a psychiatric medication for a myriad (if not most) mental health conditions.  Ironically so, in light of evidence that THC may antagonize/aggravate mental illness and in some theorists minds cause mental illness. 

[merl1n]

And that's the problem Allo. Canna has been so demonised by the AMA, by govt's, by big pharma over many decades that it has been excluded out of hand without any scientific proof.

It's being looked at now but the science has decades of catch up to do. Don't get me wrong here, some individuals mental health has been and is adversely affected by canna, but is that due to the way it's grown? Is that due to the chemicals used? Is that due to the unrestricted proliferation of PGR's? Nobody knows 'cos the science on canna has been heavily restricted. Only now are they having trials, that should have been happening back in the 50's and 60's IMO. They now have a lot of catching up to do.

[pedro de pacas]

Cannabis use has been linked to mental illness for hundreds of years

There has been plenty of medical/scientific studies on Indian hemp as well as European hemp(sativa) over the last couple of hundred years

All the things it does to help now, were well known back then, including sending some people nuts

 

With all the $'s to be made in taxes and profits legalizing med/rec pot, nobody will give a fuck, if a few fall by the wayside and end up with mental problem's 

[Allotropy]

And that's the problem Allo. Canna has been so demonised by the AMA, by govt's, by big pharma over many decades that it has been excluded out of hand without any scientific proof.

It's being looked at now but the science has decades of catch up to do. Don't get me wrong here, some individuals mental health has been and is adversely affected by canna, but is that due to the way it's grown? Is that due to the chemicals used? Is that due to the unrestricted proliferation of PGR's? Nobody knows 'cos the science on canna has been heavily restricted. Only now are they having trials, that should have been happening back in the 50's and 60's IMO. They now have a lot of catching up to do.

 

Yeah I agree with you Merlz.

 

I think some people with certain mental health conditions can smoke cannabis moderately and not be impacted by ill effects. I disagree with theorists who believe cannabis causes mental illness. I think people who abuse cannabis at a young age could potentially be more likely to develop mental health problems then those who don't. I guess it really depends on the individual and the context of their cannabis use.

 

I'm sure that cannabis provides relief to some people with certain mental illness too. However, discontinuation could potentially make things worse. This of course may not be the case either.

 

Each to their own.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Allotropy

[merl1n]

I agree Allo,

I think some people have a predisposition, or a fineline, to mental health issues and use at a young age may push them over that 'fineline' as the brain is still developing. But to say it has a cause/effect, the jury is still out on that one.

 

Pedro

"...were well known back then, including sending some people nuts."

This maybe so but it was all anecdotal, there was no science behind it ie "Johnno went a bit nuts on it so that means Billy will go nuts on it too". It needs to be a bit more refined than anecdotal. Like what caused that effect on 'Johnno', is it a chemical imbalance in Johnno? was Johnno borderline before hand? Taking one single example and saying that's across the board is simply 'bad science'.

 

"...With all the $'s to be made in taxes and profits legalizing med/rec pot, nobody will give a fuck, if a few fall by the wayside and end up with mental problem's..."

If that was the case then we wouldn't be having this debate, canna would already be legal. But mental health is being used as one of the excuses for not legalising canna. This is why the govt want to have the pharma concoctions so they can isolate (and patent) the specific cannabinoids/processes, then say "well, because we have refined it down to this specific cannabinoid it is safer for people's mental health as it doesn't contain THC" They want to convince "Joe Public" that THC is the nasty, dangerous component. The idea that GVM(Green Vegetable Matter)is going to be legalised before the pharma products by the Federal Liberal Govt is a dream IMO. The Federal Liberal Govt want to help their mates in big business, not help the patients who need it. Sure they want the $$$$$ but not from GVM, from big pharma. Then they win and big business wins too and to hell with the little bloke (Us). We pay for an inferior product that may benefit some, but won't benefit all.

 

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

Merl1n

Edited December 28, 2017 by merl1n

[pedro de pacas]

Seeing how there was no scientists till just recently, here is a couple of modern ones, there is plenty more

https://herb.co/2016/02/22/gene-may-need-wary-cannabis/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811144/

 

Liberal, Labour it matters not, they are two heads of the same body, both beholden to others, the same others,

 

I know quite a few people that have lost the plot on the pot, whether they would of lost it anyway without smoking pot, who's to know, its a bit late now for them

Personally i think its the opposite sex that drive most people nuts,

 

Bong on I say, the worlds a crazy place anyway

[pedro de pacas]

As for the Government not making it legal yet, med or rec, they are doing a hell of a job promoting it,

after many years of demonizing cannabis, it will take a few years before its acceptable to the voting public 

State Premieres getting photo opportunity's, here in Vic they grow it for little kiddies with infantile convulsions, supposedly anyway

It took them a year to grow their first crop, , fucking con artists 

[Allotropy]

Bong on, Bong on Strong

 

But yeah in all seriousness some people have indeed gone absolutely balmy on the pot.... (myself included). 

 

I think you are probably referring to schizophrenia (severe). Which is indeed a sad condition for those that experience it, usually at their prime age.

 

I think it's a mixture of genetic predisposition and contextual aspects to their use, such as age and how heavily they smoke etc is to blame. (as mentioned previously)

Edited December 28, 2017 by Allotropy