SweetSue's Cannabis Oil Study Hall

SweetSue said:
I'm listening to Russo's presentation to the Society Of Cannabis Clinicians and at 20:47 he says

"It's unclear if 11-OH-THC is any different with respect to its psychoactivity as compared to THC itself."

I was unaware of this fact. Up until this moment I'd accepted the widely promoted fact that 11-OH-THC was massively more psychoactive than THC.
Click to expand...

We may need a little more information on this before we completely toss out the conventional wisdom on the psychoactive effect of 11-HO-THC, only because I have run across a couple of references in my studies that seem to support the idea that this metabolite has increased potency. Maybe not a massive increase, but one source had indicated an 4x increase over THC (sorry, can put my hands on that reference right now, but I'll keep looking). And this article had this to say:

Further evidence that the 11-OH Delta 9 THC is responsible for marihuana's effect was seen in oral and inhalation studies. By the oral route, blood levels of unchanged THC were relatively low compared to the radioactivity levels of the metabolic products at the time of peak subjective effect. While the blood level of unchanged THC at the peak oral effect was identical to that after intravenous injection of the 0.5 mg. dose, the psychologic, effect was much more pronounced after oral administration of the larger 20 mg. dose of THC. Again after inhalation, the plasma levels of metabolites correlate temporarily with the subjective effects, but the plasma levels of unchanged Delta 9 THC do not. (Lemberger, 1971, 1972, 1973; Galanter, 1972)

I know these studies are not recent, but let's find some current data to support the info in Russo's talk before throwing out this older data completely.
 
fookinel said:
I'll see if I can get the 'ol grey matter working even more :)

How can anyone be confident that delta-9-thc is psychoactive?

The reason I ask this is that we know that delta-9-thc is metabolised in to a number of metabolites including 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc. We also know that this is further metabolised in to 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc. We know that 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc is not psychoactive as it has a long half life and stays in the system even when the psychological effects have worn off. My understanding is that administering someone with 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc gives them the psychoactive effects, so we know that is psychoactive.

So if what I've said is accurate, how do you test that delta-9-thc is psychoactive at all? Surely any way you administer delta-9-thc it will enter the bloodstream, be metabolised in to 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc, which we already know is psychoactive and will make it impossible to determine if delta-9-thc caused any psychological effects, no?
Click to expand...

fookinel, see my response above to Sue. Your idea may have merit, but let's see what we can find to support what Russo said in his talk.
 
fookinel said:
I'm happy to document it, however, I'm not so happy about photos. I would have liked to take some photos of the girls (I now have 2 growing, 1 Aurora Indica and 1 Blue Blood :) ) but I'm always concerned there may be embedded metadata that could provide identifying information. I don't think they would help much anyway, I'll basically be following cajuncelt's biobomb recipe here with a little bit from panacea's improvements here. But yes, I'm happy to document what I do and provide it here!
Click to expand...


fookinel, they say on the gallery section that the software strips all photos of metadata before loading to the site. While as a precaution, I do strip all location and personal data when I export my photos from Lightroom, it's probably not necessary. I mean, of all the growers with journals, how many have been busted? Seems pretty safe.

But whatever you're comfortable sharing, I look forward to seeing it! :thumb:
 
SlowToke said:
We may need a little more information on this before we completely toss out the conventional wisdom on the psychoactive effect of 11-HO-THC, only because I have run across a couple of references in my studies that seem to support the idea that this metabolite has increased potency. Maybe not a massive increase, but one source had indicated an 4x increase over THC (sorry, can put my hands on that reference right now, but I'll keep looking). And this article had this to say:

Further evidence that the 11-OH Delta 9 THC is responsible for marihuana's effect was seen in oral and inhalation studies. By the oral route, blood levels of unchanged THC were relatively low compared to the radioactivity levels of the metabolic products at the time of peak subjective effect. While the blood level of unchanged THC at the peak oral effect was identical to that after intravenous injection of the 0.5 mg. dose, the psychologic, effect was much more pronounced after oral administration of the larger 20 mg. dose of THC. Again after inhalation, the plasma levels of metabolites correlate temporarily with the subjective effects, but the plasma levels of unchanged Delta 9 THC do not. (Lemberger, 1971, 1972, 1973; Galanter, 1972)

I know these studies are not recent, but let's find some current data to support the info in Russo's talk before throwing out this older data completely.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... per this 1992 article from the Journal of Analytical Toxicology, the above study has been refuted:

Little is known of the formation of THC metabolites during marijuana smoking. Microsomal hydroxylation of THC was shown to produce the active metabolite, ll-hydroxy-A9-tetra- hydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC), believed by early investigators to be the true active analyte (2). However, this theory was later disputed because of the lack of immediate effects following in- travenous administration of 11-OH-THC (3)

So at least we can say that THC is for sure psychoactive, and that 11-OH-THC, as an isolated compound is not.
 
fookinel said:
I'll see if I can get the 'ol grey matter working even more :)

How can anyone be confident that delta-9-thc is psychoactive?

The reason I ask this is that we know that delta-9-thc is metabolised in to a number of metabolites including 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc. We also know that this is further metabolised in to 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc. We know that 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-thc is not psychoactive as it has a long half life and stays in the system even when the psychological effects have worn off. My understanding is that administering someone with 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc gives them the psychoactive effects, so we know that is psychoactive.

So if what I've said is accurate, how do you test that delta-9-thc is psychoactive at all? Surely any way you administer delta-9-thc it will enter the bloodstream, be metabolised in to 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc, which we already know is psychoactive and will make it impossible to determine if delta-9-thc caused any psychological effects, no?
Click to expand...

SlowToke said:
Hmmm... per this 1992 article from the Journal of Analytical Toxicology, the above study has been refuted:

Little is known of the formation of THC metabolites during marijuana smoking. Microsomal hydroxylation of THC was shown to produce the active metabolite, ll-hydroxy-A9-tetra- hydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC), believed by early investigators to be the true active analyte (2). However, this theory was later disputed because of the lack of immediate effects following in- travenous administration of 11-OH-THC (3)

So at least we can say that THC is for sure psychoactive, and that 11-OH-THC, as an isolated compound is not.
Click to expand...

Thank you for chasing all that down. It's really good to have you two here banging this out with me. Busy personal day today. Now I'm home and settled in. I'm going to try my best to finally finish off this talk. Life keeps getting in my way. :laughtwo:

Let me get my meditation session out of the way and settle down for an evening of hopefully, uninterrupted study.
 
SlowToke said:
Hmmm... per this 1992 article from the Journal of Analytical Toxicology, the above study has been refuted:

Little is known of the formation of THC metabolites during marijuana smoking. Microsomal hydroxylation of THC was shown to produce the active metabolite, ll-hydroxy-A9-tetra- hydrocannabinol (11-OH-THC), believed by early investigators to be the true active analyte (2). However, this theory was later disputed because of the lack of immediate effects following in- travenous administration of 11-OH-THC (3)

So at least we can say that THC is for sure psychoactive, and that 11-OH-THC, as an isolated compound is not.
Click to expand...

I saw "However, this theory was later disputed because of the lack of immediate effects following in- travenous administration of 11-OH-THC (3)" and thought the same as you did at first, however, I think the authors wrote this rather poorly.

What they mean is that 11-OH-THC is psychoactive, however, because the effects were not immediate after intravenous administration the theory that 11-OH-THC is the true cause was disputed.

I tracked down reference 3 here and they start discussing this (I think, I only skimmed it) on page 11 with a section titled "Active metabolite theory". They suggest that the contribution to psychological effects is dependent on route of administration. I.e. smoking and intravenously they suggest THC is most responsible and for oral it's about 50/50 THC/11-OH-THC.

The first paragraph of that section is:

Active metabolite theory. The discovery of the active metabolite 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC, has led to the suggestion that rate of onset of activity following delta-1-THC could, to a great extent, depend on its slow transformation to the active metabolite. The delay in onset of “high” and other effects could then theoretically be accounted for by the comparatively slow formation of the active compound, 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC (64). This hypothesis, however, does not seem plausible, since the marihuana-like psychological “high” appears at about the same “slow” rate after i.v. dose of both delta-1-THC and 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC in man. The latter compound does not provide an “instant high” but has a pharmacological profile identical to delta-1-THC itself (62, 88a).
Click to expand...

And the last is:

Our present views on the “active metabolite theory” may be summarized as follows. In man it is unlikely that any active metabolite, such as 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC, contributes in an important way to the effects of delta-1-THC after smoking or i.v. administration. After p.o. administration, however, we assume that 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC contributes at least as much as delta-1-THC itself.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind they use a different naming system but they refer to the same compounds, delta-1-THC is THC and 7-hydroxy-delta-1-THC is 11-OH-THC. Anyway, I can't find reference 88a, just the abstract, which is:

A microsuspension of Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol and of its metabolic derivative 11-OH-Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol has been prepared with 25 percent human serum albumin as the vehicle. Intravenous infusion of this preparation to humans indicates that both tetrahydrocannabinols are equally potent in producing the typical marihuana-like pschological and physiological effects.
Click to expand...

All of these are still from the 1970's and 1980's and overall it looks like one heck of a mess trying to figure out exactly what contribution there is from delta-9-thc and 11-hydroxy-delta-9-thc to psychological effects :)
 
:laughtwo: So, it just gets more confusing all the time. Given today's equipment advances it's time for someone to update this type of study. It also isn't helping us that almost all of the research funded by our federal government was intended to discredit the efficacy and legitimacy of cannabis, and thus almost all the data has been compromised by that slant.
 
This stuff is rolling around in my head all day and night guys. :laughtwo: I was thinking how valuable it is to have the two of you helping me out. I knew, first off, that my brain was going to need some more curious minds to tackle the data, and how thankful am I to have attracted you both. Secondly, it's been decades since I had to focus study habits and I'm still too scatter-shot for my own taste, so you two are helping my brain make the shift it needs to make. You're also teaching me how to decipher these research papers to find the finer details.

I just wanted to start my week with a hearty "Thank you". You make great study buddies. :circle-of-love:
 
I've been trying to find some more recent information regarding the pharmacokinetcs and particularly this discussion about psychological effects. I haven't found much but I did find this which reviews some scientific literature. The relevant information starts around the top of page 3 with "Scientific Data Relating to THC".

This document has settled things for me when it comes to discussing the medicinal use of cannabis. The biggest variable seems to be the user with the extraction (as an umbrella term including the strain(s) used, the extraction method, etc.) probably a close second. I'm happy to be corrected, but what I take from that document is that there is no way to ascertain the medicinal effects of an extract on an individual based on any psychological effects...

Getting more in depth, the document suggests that when smoking:

  • there is a small difference in plasma THC levels over a huge difference in plant THC levels; and
  • there is no correlation between plasma THC and the degree of any "high"; and
  • regular users achieve a "high" quicker and have higher plasma THC levels than occasional users.

While all of that relates to smoking, some of it may still apply to other routes of administration. It suggests that starting off at a low dose and building up tolerance is the right way to go. It might also suggest that as you build up a tolerance you will get greater benefit from the extraction (as regular users had higher THC plasma levels when smoking equal cigarettes to occasional users).

I don't know if I can take this from the document, but one reason 11-OH-THC may not be detected in the blood after smoking/IV administration could be that it accumulates in the brain. It may be that when ingested the liver metabolises THC in to 11-OH-THC and that it takes a while for the relatively large amount of 11-OH-THC to accumulate in the brain. I think I'm speculating, so take it with a grain of salt!

Anyway, all of this got me thinking that it might be best to study the people who are having success treating cancer with cannabis extracts, both at the compounds in the extracts they're taking and how those compounds wind up in their system. Perhaps there would be some correlation which could help narrow down what's important in achieving a successful treatment?
 
Interestingly, while looking for information about THC and it's metabolites I stumbled across ajulemic acid which appears to be a synthetic analog of 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (a second metabolite of THC). I believe it was first investigated as it's more potent than 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC when treating certain things as illustrated here.

Anyway, it seems that this cannabinoid also has anti tumor effects as shown here.

I wonder if there are/how many other cannabinoids will be found to have anti tumor effects!
 
Can I get stronger medicine if I use the whole plant?

I have a member willing to run a test with his oil. He's going to make one batch with just buds and one batch with whole plant. When we were discussing this we were grasping at ratios to use. In listening to Russo's talk, which I still haven't finished (how does life get so busy at the beginning of every month?) I discovered the formula to use.

At harvest we can safely assume that 70% of the weight is in the flowers. That means you'd use 70% buds and the remaining 30% can be split between stems and fan leaves. I'd figure it'd be a safe guess that could be split 20% stem and 10% leaves.

Any thoughts?

A couple other points about oil production:

- If you decarb before chopping the plant material down for the wash you've eliminated all the moisture and the material's easier to break up. I know this from personal experience.

- When you're taking a gram or more of oil a day you want to be as frugal as you can be. If you decarb first, then break the plant material down before you begin the wash you'll need less solvent to cover it.

- If using the whole plant you'll need the stems chopped up. I'd be leery about using a machine to do this, because I don't like the idea of losing valuable trichomes to the inside of the machine. I'd recommend kitchen shears and don't worry about getting it teeny-tiny. The trichomes are on the outside of the stem and you only need it small enough to fit in your wash container.

- If you decarb first all you have to do is boil off the solvent. This can be done very safely and easily by placing the pan that has your wash in it over another pan with water brought to boiling. The flame can be cut and the heat from the water is enough to do the job. If it cools down too much, simply bring the water to boiling again.
 
Morning all.
I'm in Phoenix, Az this week. I lived here a decade ago. Hasn't changed a whole lot.
We're lecturing @ ASU until Wed, then back home for a free days, then to Nevada.
Hope you're all doing well.

Sue, I've personally always decarbed in the oven/turkey bag prior to the 1st wash for a number of reasons.
 
cajuncelt said:
Morning all.
I'm in Phoenix, Az this week. I lived here a decade ago. Hasn't changed a whole lot.
We're lecturing @ ASU until Wed, then back home for a free days, then to Nevada.
Hope you're all doing well.

Sue, I've personally always decarbed in the oven/turkey bag prior to the 1st wash for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...


Too bad you can't stream it for us!!!! I guess I will just have to wait till you get yourself up near the Big Apple.

If I was at ASU, I would be trying to find time to watch a softball game. The Sun Devils are usually in the mix. (my daughter was an elite pitcher all though high school and we enjoy the college softball.)

Have fun Cajun. At least you should have a good cell signal on campus!!! :) :peace:
 
cajuncelt said:
Morning all.
I'm in Phoenix, Az this week. I lived here a decade ago. Hasn't changed a whole lot.
We're lecturing @ ASU until Wed, then back home for a free days, then to Nevada.
Hope you're all doing well.

Sue, I've personally always decarbed in the oven/turkey bag prior to the 1st wash for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that reminder Cajun. I've been advising neikodog all week on his first attempt at oil and I completely forgot the bag. Awk!!! I'll fire off a note to him right now.

Pheonix!! You wait till I'm not there? :laughtwo:

Have a great time.
 
More thoughts on decarboxylation

This is an important step I follow when I decarb.

When you decarb in the oven, use a turkey bag. I put my plant material into a pie pan and then close it off, place it on a baking sheet and pop it in the oven. Close it off real good, decarb and let it cool in the oven with the door ajar until cool enough to pop in the freezer for an hour. This lets the vapors settle before you open, and doing it this way you may preserve some of the terpenes and flavonoids that would have been lost otherwise. Those components are somewhat critical to the enhanced effectiveness of the final oil, so do incorporate this step.
 
.....still thinking about decarbing

I was over at the Marijuana Grower's Headquarters, reviewing Rambo's decarb experiment. This was interesting enough I copied it to paste here. He has apparently proven that the best way to completely decarb is 240 degrees F for 60 minutes. What I found so interesting here though is the numbers that show up at each stage of the process. He baked it for 30 min, removed a sample for testing and then placed the pan back in the oven for another 30 minutes. He placed the plant material in Pyrex dishes set on a pizza stone and used a thermometer to keep track of the temps.

Looking over these numbers I couldn't help thinking that there may be instances where we'd want the 30 minute decarb. We beginning to learn some surprising things about this marvelous plant, and some of that's bound to effect the way we decarb. I also found myself wondering what the test results would have been had he used an oven roasting bag to decarb. I'm going to need to talk someone into doing some decarb testing of just the plant materials. I can't do that myself, living in this restrictive state. So frustrating! I need to stick to my plan to relocate into a legal state.

There was also an interesting comment on his post that shared how the respondent had developed a practice of decarbing at 160 degrees F to preserve the terpenes and flavonoids, because these components are just as important, as the cannabinoids. This was the first I'd come across this idea, and it appeals to me. No mention of how long this person baked the cannabis for to get to decarb, but I'm sure that can be worked out. Reading that solidified my thoughts to have some samples tested. If we can find a way to make oil that preserves those components I'm gonna jump for joy. That may be what's happening when you decarb in an oven bag.

I definately need to move. My daughter and her partner are moving within the next couple months and my brother who lives in the building and whom I watch over (mildly retarded and can't do money) will be moving to Texas this summer with my sister. That leaves me totally free to break my ties with this area and get my butt somewhere legal. That would simplify the testing concerns for me.

I'd sure like to see the test results on oil made from whole plant material decarbed either very slowly in lower heat or at the higher temperature but in an oven bag and then processed with the technique of simply boiling off the solvent over a double boiler. I have a suspicion we'd be pleasantly surprised at the results.


Results of Decarboxylation Experiment

The following charts show the results of the 30 minute and 60 minute decarboxylation experiments. Also included are the lab results from testing done prior to any artificial decarboxylation to establish a starting point. Note that because of the age of both the kief and the trim, decarboxylation had begun to take place to some degree naturally. This may not be your starting point, but should not affect the results of the experiment much.

Kief

Compound Before Decarb 30 Min Decarb 60 Min Decarb
THCA 24.5% 2.6% .1%
THC 3.8% 25.4% 25.5%
CBDA .6% .3% .3%
CBD 0% 1% .1%
CBN .4% 1% 1.4%
Moisture 0% 0% 0%
Total Cannabanoids 29.3% 30.3% 27.4%


Cannabis Trim

Compound Before Decarb 30 Min Decarb 60 Min Decarb
THCA 6.5% 2.9% .2%
THC .6% 4.8% 6.9%
CBDA .2% .2% .1%
CBD 0% 0% .1%
CBN 0% 0% 0%
Moisture 3.4% 4.5% 0%
Total Cannabanoids 7.3% 7.9% 7.3%

Testing provided by SC Labs

As you can see from the two charts, 30 minutes was not quite enough to completely decarboxylate either the kief or the trim. At 30 minutes the kief was about 90% decarboxylated but the trim was only about 60% decarboxylated. This difference is likely because the trim had a higher starting moisture content. After 60 minutes however, both keif and trim samples were close enough to 100% decarboxylation for my satisfaction.

So there you have it. 240° F for 60 minutes should be enough to decarboxylate any cannabis with a reasonably low moisture content. For material with higher moisture content, the time can be extended but the temperature should not be increased. If you are concerned about losing organic compounds, lower heat can be used but the time should be extended to compensate.

Interesting Findings

As with most experiments, the results often lead to new questions. Here are a few unexpected finding that may lead to future experiments.

The kief and trim both appear to have lost some total cannabinoids after the second 30 minutes in the oven. Some of you might suggest this is from vaporization from being at temperature for too long. This could be true, thought they were from the same plant they were not the exact same samples. Additionally lab tests do have a margin of error, so I’m not sure that is a safe assumption. This would need to be tested with more samples to have a solid verdict.

For some reason the moisture content of the trim tested higher after the first 30 minutes in the oven. I have no idea why this would be. It could just be a fluke.

The CBDA did not appear to convert to CBD during the decarboxylation of the THCA. Some further research might shed some light on this.
 
Good lord! I just realized what time it is. I've been scouring through documents now for four hours straight, completely lost to the passage of time. I need some food. :laughtwo: This is challenging when you live alone and have little appetite. Might be contributing to the weight loss. Awk! Weight loss! I have a meditation I forgot to get to. Hahaha! For a retired woman with no real responsibilities I seem to have too little time in my days. Lol!

I'm having the time of my life guys. Ahhhh...... Life is sweet.
 
random notes: using a distiller

Just dropping this in here so I have it later. When using a distiller you want to be sure to leave the excess water and a little more for safety purposes (so as not to risk burning the oil) in the distiller. The reason you're even using a distiller is to recover some of the solvent (alcohol). You don't want the water. This is how you go about making sure that water got left inside the distiller.

From wildjim:

When distilling anything less than 92-93% alcohol, the amount of water by volume has to be left in the bottom to keep the % of reclaimed alcohol high. 92% alcohol mean 10% water and 10% safety equals the 20% mark on the bottle. In other words if 50% (100 proof) is used you must leave 50% of the total volume in the distiller, the water amount, then add 10% more to make sure the reclaimed amount is without water. That is what I would mark on the jar or bottle that catches the distilled alcohol. The 20% I mentioned earlier was when using Everclear 92%. An alcohol volume of 151proof would mean to mark it at 25% plus 10% to be sure no water is distilled. So for 151proof (75%) alcohol the mark should be at 35% on the recovery container.
 
Back
Top Bottom