Cannabis scientists are trying to find a predictable, reliable product (2020)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Cannabis scientists are trying to find a predictable, reliable product (2020)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/01/magazine/cannabis-science.html
65 comments
Nothing will get rid of the hangover (unless you count being high all the time). Why not dabs? There are also suppositories. Eating it implies the digestion process which makes it massively variable (fat solubility, how recently you ate, how good your liver is etc...). I would think sublinguals would be decent but I've never tried (and probably won't...quit cannabis for other reasons years ago. I was a very heavy user, 3-5 grams of concentrate dabbed a week).
Because of years of dabbing in my early 20’s (a lot of reckless high temp ones especially) my lungs are hyper sensitive to any sort of inhaling and I’ve been told by pulmonologists that I have asthmatic symptoms.
I get chest pains from car exhaust,cig smoke, high fume cooking, cleaning products etc. so yeah…that’s why I seem so adamant on edibles.
I only did sublingual rso which didn’t feel very euphoric. It does seem promising to people with Parkinson’s or anyone who wants medicinal benefits with minimal impairment.
I get chest pains from car exhaust,cig smoke, high fume cooking, cleaning products etc. so yeah…that’s why I seem so adamant on edibles.
I only did sublingual rso which didn’t feel very euphoric. It does seem promising to people with Parkinson’s or anyone who wants medicinal benefits with minimal impairment.
Ah wow, yah I understand that, I for sure torched my lungs a few times (ever been so high you forgot to put water in the dab rig...sigh). Was a smoker (tobacco) for about a decade as well but luckily have recovered from all that without any long term breathing related symptoms.
I don't know how economical they are these days (or how loaded with sugar they might be) but the thc-infused drinks were nice when I gave them a go.
Maybe the sublinguals were just too much cbd? I really liked rso capsules.
I don't know how economical they are these days (or how loaded with sugar they might be) but the thc-infused drinks were nice when I gave them a go.
Maybe the sublinguals were just too much cbd? I really liked rso capsules.
I could give the drinks a try. The only caveat though is that I like to split them. Since those drinks contain some thc infused oil, I can’t imagine it would be evenly distributed well.
The sublinguals actually had no cbd and they were medical grade.
The sublinguals actually had no cbd and they were medical grade.
[deleted]
You could try decarbed weed in gel caps. It’s just the first stage of edibles without all the extra food gunk.
Unless I’ve mistaken what you suggested, It needs either a carrier oil or ethanol to be psychoactive, at least how things stand now. And if what you suggested is like anything that I’ve tried, it’s the same problem. They just aren’t as reliable or consistent as other oral drugs.
There needs to be research done so we can do away with smoking. People who take opioids don’t need a pipe, why do we?
There needs to be research done so we can do away with smoking. People who take opioids don’t need a pipe, why do we?
Yes you need to take it with something. But you don’t have to be messing about with somebody else’s idea of what a nice treat is.
We have vaporisers, if you want a safe reliable non-pipe solution for self administration.
We have vaporisers, if you want a safe reliable non-pipe solution for self administration.
>But you don’t have to be messing about with somebody else’s idea of what a nice treat is.
It’s nothing about a personal treat, it’s about a reliable product that works with as minimal physical damage as possible. Vaping and smoking just don’t meet that criteria.
Think of something like Vicodin, you just take the sugarless pill and it just works. Maybe quicker and harder depending on how empty your stomach is, but far less unpredictable. I don’t think we’re ever gonna get there with THC without the research funding currently only found by major pharmaceutical companies.
It’s nothing about a personal treat, it’s about a reliable product that works with as minimal physical damage as possible. Vaping and smoking just don’t meet that criteria.
Think of something like Vicodin, you just take the sugarless pill and it just works. Maybe quicker and harder depending on how empty your stomach is, but far less unpredictable. I don’t think we’re ever gonna get there with THC without the research funding currently only found by major pharmaceutical companies.
What was your issue with tincture again? I don’t think you’d run side effects like you do with Vicodin
I was only using Vicodin as an example of something that’s consistent. I could’ve mentioned almost any other well known psychoactive pharmaceutical
I should probably try oil based tinctures. I’d imagine they’re the same deal as gummies, but I’d have to see.
I tried ethanol tinctures sublingually. Not only did they burn like hell but they were leaving cuts under my tongue.
I should probably try oil based tinctures. I’d imagine they’re the same deal as gummies, but I’d have to see.
I tried ethanol tinctures sublingually. Not only did they burn like hell but they were leaving cuts under my tongue.
For me a strong coconut oil based infusion hits pretty much instantly
maybe something like a crushed protab via nasal insufflation
You'd think with all the tech and money going into this space by now we'd have something closer to a predictable, modular experience
> We’ve all been to those glass case dispensaries by now.
No. I don't even know what this means.
> The world of weed isn’t that new and exciting anymore, c’mon guys…
I think it is. In my country it's illegal.
No. I don't even know what this means.
> The world of weed isn’t that new and exciting anymore, c’mon guys…
I think it is. In my country it's illegal.
California/Colorado/Canada sometimes forget that they were blazing the trail (pun intended). Here in Germany it's only been legal since last year, and the novelty of hasn't worn off.
Also in Germany edibles aren’t legal, so we are stuck with smoking or self baking
Sure they are. If you get a private (or public) prescription then you can happily buy oils and tinctures from pharmacies.
The bit about pure THC rings true. My guy here in Britain sells live resin but occasionally when he's out of that, I'll buy one of his homebrew dab carts.
He says they are 0.4ml live resin, 0.5ml THC distillate and 0.1ml terpenes. They weigh so much heavier on my brain, and have little euphoria, compared to live resin or regular old nugs.
He says they are 0.4ml live resin, 0.5ml THC distillate and 0.1ml terpenes. They weigh so much heavier on my brain, and have little euphoria, compared to live resin or regular old nugs.
Are you controlling for cannabinoid tolerance? I have a hard time evaluating products as I never control for this when switching.
> weather or insects
Growers aren't really worried about them. They worried about the deadly HLVd virus. https://ceainsight.com/research-hop-latent-viroid-cannabis/
Weather is irrelevant, it's all in hightech greenhouses, with strong LED lighting, automatic watering, climate control, no insects.
Growers aren't really worried about them. They worried about the deadly HLVd virus. https://ceainsight.com/research-hop-latent-viroid-cannabis/
Weather is irrelevant, it's all in hightech greenhouses, with strong LED lighting, automatic watering, climate control, no insects.
Oh there will definitely be insects indoors if you are not careful to no bring them in. But yeah HLVd is currently a real plant pandemic
Insects and Microorganisms are indeed wanted from my perspective - I grow in living soil and cherish any form of live. There are studies about certain fungi in the soil which lead to peach aroma and flowery terpenes. This plant is plenty of tastes: gasy and fruity, herbful. When you get a Banana Punch it feels like a fruit ensemble and the sweetest fruits just like grapes do need terroir
Maybe it's only me, but "cannabis scientists" seems another one of these nonsense words that content creators make up to make their product sound smart. It slowly diffuses into mainstream journalism, and I'm really sorry for the NYTimes if their readers don't know what a chemist or biologist is.
Call me Don Quixote, but I think it's a slippery slope.
Do you recall when Colorado first legalized?
NYTimes sent a journalist to Denver, who bought a chocolate bar at a dispensary, went back to their hotel room and ate it. Then, started seeing kaleidoscopes and curled up into the fetal position until it all wore off. No long term harm of course, but one freaked out New Yorker.
Turned out, the chocolate bar was 8 doses! and the journalist had NEVER used any cannabis in their life prior to ingesting.
This is one reason I'm not an advocate of edibles, or extracted products in general.
So, that's the context of this article. NYT and NY in general are fighting cannabis all the way. The east coast of the US really is 50 years behind, and not just regarding cannabis.
I also agree with your criticism of the news hype of "cannabis scientists".
As I say in my article comment, just smoke the plant, stop trying to turn it into jet fuel...
NYTimes sent a journalist to Denver, who bought a chocolate bar at a dispensary, went back to their hotel room and ate it. Then, started seeing kaleidoscopes and curled up into the fetal position until it all wore off. No long term harm of course, but one freaked out New Yorker.
Turned out, the chocolate bar was 8 doses! and the journalist had NEVER used any cannabis in their life prior to ingesting.
This is one reason I'm not an advocate of edibles, or extracted products in general.
So, that's the context of this article. NYT and NY in general are fighting cannabis all the way. The east coast of the US really is 50 years behind, and not just regarding cannabis.
I also agree with your criticism of the news hype of "cannabis scientists".
As I say in my article comment, just smoke the plant, stop trying to turn it into jet fuel...
> NYTimes sent a journalist to Denver
That was none other than Maureen Dowd, famous as a warmonger and booster of Trump's foreign policy in his first term: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-o...
Not surprised that reading and decision making aren't her strong skills.
That was none other than Maureen Dowd, famous as a warmonger and booster of Trump's foreign policy in his first term: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-o...
Not surprised that reading and decision making aren't her strong skills.
At my office there was an out of order sign on a toilet door saying an engineer would fix the stall soon.
I remember when toilet engineers were called plumbers!
I remember when toilet engineers were called plumbers!
The comparison to tuning a symphony vs isolating a single instrument really stuck with me. Trying to turn such a complex, variable plant into a mass-market, repeatable product seems like an uphill battle
> to make cannabis as popular as booze requires solving that original problem: It’s hard to imagine millions of people becoming new recreational users without being able to promise them that the product they’re spending money on ... will give them the effect they want.
> it remains to be seen whether that’s even possible with a plant as complex as cannabis
Cannabis doesn't work like this. It has been tried and the end result was Sativex. It doesn't work as well as actual cannabis. It's like trying to replace coffee with caffeine. There's something like ~1000 compounds in coffee. The effects are not the same.
There's an entourage effect going on in cannabis that's extremely hard to replicate. Even buds on different parts of the same plant will have different profiles.
Also the sativa vs indica classification is almost completely meaningless nonsense these days. Does it have high THCV? Then maybe it's what was once called sativa. Was it an indica harvested before there were any amber trichomes? Maybe it has 'sativa' effects etc.
> it remains to be seen whether that’s even possible with a plant as complex as cannabis
Cannabis doesn't work like this. It has been tried and the end result was Sativex. It doesn't work as well as actual cannabis. It's like trying to replace coffee with caffeine. There's something like ~1000 compounds in coffee. The effects are not the same.
There's an entourage effect going on in cannabis that's extremely hard to replicate. Even buds on different parts of the same plant will have different profiles.
Also the sativa vs indica classification is almost completely meaningless nonsense these days. Does it have high THCV? Then maybe it's what was once called sativa. Was it an indica harvested before there were any amber trichomes? Maybe it has 'sativa' effects etc.
Isn't it also the same with alcohol, at least the beverage that people drink? Wine especially is very susceptible to conditions; soil, weather, strain, location, barrels, harvest time, aging conditions/temperature, etc.
Sure, the alcohol chemical is the same everywhere, but so is THC/CBD when you want to reduce it like that. Watered down ethanol is probably a thing but few people drink it like that.
Sure, the alcohol chemical is the same everywhere, but so is THC/CBD when you want to reduce it like that. Watered down ethanol is probably a thing but few people drink it like that.
That affects the taste of the alcohol, but not really the psychoactive effects. Booze is booze is booze.
I used to think so too, but apparently not. Ethanol is chemically the same everywhere, but there are lots of other compounds and different alcohol compounds in booze as well and apparently make a difference in your high and how much your head hurts afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_(chemistry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_(chemistry)
What part of that link backs up your claim?
It's a list of some molecules considered alcohols, not things you'd find in an alcoholic beverage.
It's a list of some molecules considered alcohols, not things you'd find in an alcoholic beverage.
Granted, I was not happy with that link and am also not so much with this one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fermentation#Byprodu...
Still, there is the information inside, that not just ethanol gets produced by fermentation, but also other alcohols and the main point was, alcohol is not the same as ethanol.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fermentation#Byprodu...
Still, there is the information inside, that not just ethanol gets produced by fermentation, but also other alcohols and the main point was, alcohol is not the same as ethanol.
Huh. I didn't expect so much methanol to be present in booze! (Methanol is incredibly toxic, but ethanol is an antitoxin, so that explains why wine doesn't kill people.)
That’s the angel’s share — the first bits of distillation you need to throw out.
Edit: I’m wrong! That’s the term for the part that evaporates during aging.
But this article explains what happens to the methanol at distillers and it’s pretty fascinating: https://www.whiskyandwisdom.com/bringing-balance-to-the-fore...
Edit: I’m wrong! That’s the term for the part that evaporates during aging.
But this article explains what happens to the methanol at distillers and it’s pretty fascinating: https://www.whiskyandwisdom.com/bringing-balance-to-the-fore...
That was not my experience at all when I used to drink, and I don't think I'm alone in this. The feeling from different alcoholic drinks differed significantly.
I disagree - personally I have vastly different effects wether I drink beer, whiskey, wine or jägermeister and I’m sure most people feel the same.
A good portion of drunkenness is purely psychological. Tell people that fruit juice is alcoholic, and they start acting drunk, even though they're sober. I imagine it's mostly that, plus the different alcohol concentrations.
For some people that's definitely true, placebo is a real thing after all. But it's not like that with everyone, and even if "booze is booze is booze" is true, just like with cannabis, there is more stuff in the drinks than just alcohol, that might also change the effect you get from drinking.
> It's like trying to replace coffee with caffeine
Given how many people drink artificially caffeinated beverages this feels like a poor example
Given how many people drink artificially caffeinated beverages this feels like a poor example
A lot of the flower at stores are not very good now. There has been a proliferation of flavored strains that just taste weird and bad. Lilac Diesel anyone?
On the other hand, the tried and true traditional strains have and always been excellent. But they are scarce due to demand, so at least half of what you see is filler crap. And you can't even smell it and certainly not try it like a shop in Amsterdam.
On the other hand, the tried and true traditional strains have and always been excellent. But they are scarce due to demand, so at least half of what you see is filler crap. And you can't even smell it and certainly not try it like a shop in Amsterdam.
Sativa vs indica is meaningless but if one wants to sleep THC+CBN is the way to go. And usually these products are labeled as "indica" on the packaging. Sometimes melatonin is added as well. I shy away from that but it also works quite well.
If my memory serves me:
Amber trichomes indicate the THC degrading into CBN.
If you harvest when the trichomes are milky or clear but not amber you'll have higher THC vs CBN.
But this earlier harvest comes at the expense of yield as you sacrifice time that would be spent with the buds increasing in size as they become ever more sexually frustrated.
Black market cannabis tends to optimise for this.
Amber trichomes indicate the THC degrading into CBN.
If you harvest when the trichomes are milky or clear but not amber you'll have higher THC vs CBN.
But this earlier harvest comes at the expense of yield as you sacrifice time that would be spent with the buds increasing in size as they become ever more sexually frustrated.
Black market cannabis tends to optimise for this.
Since we managed to make coffee predictable and enjoyable, is the same not possible with cannabis? (Using horticultural practices as with coffee rather than trying to synthesize anything in a lab/factory.)
We havent made coffee predictable AFAIK
At the mass retail/consumer level, I think we have.
If you asked me to describe the coffee I buy in 1.5 pound tubs from Folgers, predictable (or a synonym) would probably be in the first 10 adjectives I'd use.
If you asked me to describe the coffee I buy in 1.5 pound tubs from Folgers, predictable (or a synonym) would probably be in the first 10 adjectives I'd use.
Depends on your brewing method tbh. If you're making espresso properly then each batch will need a different grind setting.
If you are brewing with french press, not so much.
I wish i could buy coffee so consistent that id never need to adjust the grind setting or pick out bad beans as i weigh my shots out for the week. Have tried about 30 roasters, none are THAT consistent because it probably isnt practical to be.
If you are brewing with french press, not so much.
I wish i could buy coffee so consistent that id never need to adjust the grind setting or pick out bad beans as i weigh my shots out for the week. Have tried about 30 roasters, none are THAT consistent because it probably isnt practical to be.
Same reason an energy drink with caffeine, taurine, etc. still doesn't feel exactly like a cup of coffee
"Cannabis scientists"? Who needs 'em...
Grow a plant, Smoke it, Enjoy...
All of the extracts, derivatives, and edibles ARE the problem. Stop concentrating the "active ingredients", and use a minimally selected variety of the plant.
As usual, all the effort going into making a shit ton of money for some rich asshole are f_cking up the original item for everyone else.
NOTE: maybe you're also familiar with a similar course of events on this thing called "the internet"?
Grow a plant, Smoke it, Enjoy...
All of the extracts, derivatives, and edibles ARE the problem. Stop concentrating the "active ingredients", and use a minimally selected variety of the plant.
As usual, all the effort going into making a shit ton of money for some rich asshole are f_cking up the original item for everyone else.
NOTE: maybe you're also familiar with a similar course of events on this thing called "the internet"?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hey, let me know if you need anyone to help with that research.
[deleted]
Cemetery plots or stents, if you can trust the Science
E. g.,
https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Journal-Scans/2025/...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cannabis-use-cardiova...
E. g.,
https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Journal-Scans/2025/...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cannabis-use-cardiova...
I've seen the same study reported in non-science media today as well.
As is established tradition, the scientists did a meta-analysis of studies that did not control for method of administration. (Your second link - healthline - notes that: "There was no delineation in the analysis, however, on the risks of smoking cannabis compared to ingesting it."). I have yet to see any evidence that edibles or dry-herb vaporisers have the same harms as smoking.
I have absolutely no problem with believing that smoking cannabis is harmful. There is clearly value in warning people about smoking cannabis. However, I would like to see some nuance around method of administration. I will continue to treat my health issues with oil-based tinctures and the occasional bit of dry-herb vaped flower.
As is established tradition, the scientists did a meta-analysis of studies that did not control for method of administration. (Your second link - healthline - notes that: "There was no delineation in the analysis, however, on the risks of smoking cannabis compared to ingesting it."). I have yet to see any evidence that edibles or dry-herb vaporisers have the same harms as smoking.
I have absolutely no problem with believing that smoking cannabis is harmful. There is clearly value in warning people about smoking cannabis. However, I would like to see some nuance around method of administration. I will continue to treat my health issues with oil-based tinctures and the occasional bit of dry-herb vaped flower.
Surprised that after all these years we still have to point out “correlation is not causation”
They seemed to discuss reducing as much of the plant as possible to make something less variable, but smoking has gotten so many improvements what about edibles?
Just make a THC capsule that works whenever I take it, cumulatively if possible.
Not lousy gummies that I can only take once in a 24 hour cycle as my tolerance skyrockets. Followed by a hangover effect caused by as little as 10 mg.
Those current gummies, if my dosage isn’t enough and I take more later (low and slow), the second dose never quite catches up to the first one. It’s just one big non euphoric haze.
I’ve tried sublingual RSO, tinctures, and edibles. The current world of non smokable weed needs a lot of fundamental changes. It’s almost like edibles are stuck in the 70’s era of pot brownies but they reduced it down to a gummy.