Need your opinion on how to buy best meds

[lwien]

........nearly all dispensaries rely on bag appeal and not potency to make a sale, so they would be looking for the buds with the most frost.

"Nearly" is a key word here, but yeah, I totally agree. Sad.......but true. The percentages are with them in that most of their customers will be totally satisfied unless they're really selling trash.

 

[weedemon]

OO, ideally I would like to be able to just grow my own and not have to worry about the paranoia the law brings to the table. If a dispensary is the loophole i need to make my dream happen... or maybe there are other ways? medicinal license?

 

[hereatlast]

OO, sorry I hope I didn't come across as directly attacking your post, I think you're completely right and I know that I largely restated the case you put forth. Also, I agree that misconceptions are tough to dispel, really that was the main motivation for my post; namely, a misconception may linger if the bolded section, taken in isolation, is taken as a rule ("the concentration of psychoactive components in the trichome as well as the number of trichomes is what will determine potency") without your original post's qualification ("the reason that the number of trichomes has little to do with potency is because not all of the trichome is psychoactive").


This is kind of an aside but certainly relevant to the thread title: some recent certifications have been implemented by private companies granting specific 'batches' of medicine as what essentially amounts to 'organic' (Actually, it seems that some of these certifications go above and beyond the government's system for granting an 'organic stamp' and further, no pot can properly, that is legally, be labeled 'organic' as of now. What seems particularly maddening is that since the branch of government that deems a product 'organic,' the US Department of Agriculture, is part of the same Federal Government that classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, it doesn't seem the USDA will be willing to stamp medi-pot 'organic' as things stand...that seems like a seriously messed up impediment to a patient accessing safe medicine to me.) Anyways, some standardization of potency could certainly prove useful in a similar way. Apologize for the rant...

 

[OO]

OO, ideally I would like to be able to just grow my own and not have to worry about the paranoia the law brings to the table. If a dispensary is the loophole i need to make my dream happen... or maybe there are other ways? medicinal license?

in california if you are a patient you can grow your own, if you're not a patient you can still grow, but only if someone makes you their "caretaker".

OO, sorry I hope I didn't come across as directly attacking your post, I think you're completely right and I know that I largely restated the case you put forth. Also, I agree that misconceptions are tough to dispel, really that was the main motivation for my post; namely, a misconception may linger if the bolded section, taken in isolation, is taken as a rule ("the concentration of psychoactive components in the trichome as well as the number of trichomes is what will determine potency") without your original post's qualification ("the reason that the number of trichomes has little to do with potency is because not all of the trichome is psychoactive").


This is kind of an aside but certainly relevant to the thread title: some recent certifications have been implemented by private companies granting specific 'batches' of medicine as what essentially amounts to 'organic' (Actually, it seems that some of these certifications go above and beyond the government's system for granting an 'organic stamp' and further, no pot can properly, that is legally, be labeled 'organic' as of now. What seems particularly maddening is that since the branch of government that deems a product 'organic,' the US Department of Agriculture, is part of the same Federal Government that classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, it doesn't seem the USDA will be willing to stamp medi-pot 'organic' as things stand...that seems like a seriously messed up impediment to a patient accessing safe medicine to me.) Anyways, some standardization of potency could certainly prove useful in a similar way. Apologize for the rant...

Thank you for taking the time to add the content you have, and for adding clarification, it will be appreciated by those looking for insight into potency.

as far as "organic" is concerned, last i checked there are no strictly applied definitions of what is "organic".

most definitions i've come across don't allow genetic engineering of any kind, i.e. selective breeding.
if that is the case, then no bud is organic.

BTW, i would never pay more for less like you do if you buy "organic".
see the organic food episode of penn and teller's bullshit for more info.

as far as standardization of potency, i would love that as well, but we still don't know the extent to which different cannabinoids interact.

when more funding has gone into studying these interactions, standardization will be realized.

 

[hereatlast]

FWIW, The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (lengthy PDF: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5060370&acct=nopgeninfo) seems to offer fairly stringent guidelines for what legally qualifies as organic in the U.S.

I'm not sure at all about the place of genetic engineering in that Act, but considering humans have been conducting genetic engineering in agriculture for thousands of years I'm not sure what nuances would allow a definition that completely rejects genetic engineering of any kind. I do make conscious decisions to buy certain things organic (something I know I am incredibly privileged to do) but more than anything, the organic produce available to me is just better than that at supermarkets that offer little to no organic goods. Sorry for the off-tracking.


It would certainly be amazing if some holistic perspective of the way the cannabinoids and other compounds interact and affect us emerged. I'm not sure if I have faith that that will or even can happen personally, I'll be hoping with you.

 

[djonkoman]

genetic engineering usually refers to brining new genes in(with bacteria, they can add parts of DNA), for example monsanto who produces round up and crops resistant againsty roundup(causing farmers to use way too much ofcourse, creating resistant weeds wich have adapted naturally)

selective breeding has gone on since the beginning of agriculture, and is usually not referred to with genetic engineering but there is another term, can't come up with it right now...
artificial selection or so, against natural selection
and ofcourse organic growing allows breeding, just not with genetic engineering technologies(probably also including the creation of polyploid crops with chemicals)

and btw, vegetables/fruits from own garden, especially strawberries, are just so much tastier then store-bought(storebought strawberries are often huge but with a nasty mealy core, and very weal watery taste, from own harden they're smaller and in the beginning of the season still a bit sour, but they're much stronger in taste and don't have that nasty core)
eggs from your own chickens who are free to go on a large area are delicious too

 

[momatik]

What about all emphasis now on lab analysis? Do people find this helpful in determining potency?

 

[OO]

What about all emphasis now on lab analysis? Do people find this helpful in determining potency?

it is to an extent, it's a good indicator of the potency of the batch, and the buds around the specific part of the plant (if it's a rather large plant). the older the bud on the plant, the more likely the trichomes will be ambering before harvest (depends on harvesting technique).

but oftentimes the ratios don't vary widely within the same strain, there will be minor variation, but usually not a completely different effect.

i'm sure that some people put alot more faith in it than i do, but i still think we need to do more research on the way the different psychoactives interact.

 

[Carbon]

I think if cannabis is to be used seriously as medicine and not just for recreation, testing is paramount. It is the first step in being able to target what components of the plant have what effects and remedy what ailments. Then one can breed plants targeted at certain conditions or groups of conditions rather than just what gets you the most baked (this is already occurring to a small degree). Another key thing with testing is screening the bud to make sure it is safe and free from adulterants (chemicals, parasites, etc.).

Overall testing is the future and I feel that it is quite important. Testing is important but one still must rely on the good faith of the grower and distributor either way. Hopefully the dispensary sends out a few random buds to be tested rather than the best one they can find. I know if I were a grower I'd probably send the dankest most frostilicious part of a harvest if the test sample were coming from me.

 

[VWFringe]

anybody know how much that testing costs?

I know we'll be paying for it, and for that reason could do without it.

I know what paraquat pot's supposed to look like, been using on and off for thirty years. Never had a problem.

...and collectives are supposed to be in relationship with the growers, so is this really neccessary, or is it grasping at something to make people feel good, or validate their business in a way?

Just saying, there is another viewpoint.

 

[djonkoman]

I think if cannabis is to be used seriously as medicine and not just for recreation, testing is paramount. It is the first step in being able to target what components of the plant have what effects and remedy what ailments. Then one can breed plants targeted at certain conditions or groups of conditions rather than just what gets you the most baked (this is already occurring to a small degree). Another key thing with testing is screening the bud to make sure it is safe and free from adulterants (chemicals, parasites, etc.).

Overall testing is the future and I feel that it is quite important. Testing is important but one still must rely on the good faith of the grower and distributor either way. Hopefully the dispensary sends out a few random buds to be tested rather than the best one they can find. I know if I were a grower I'd probably send the dankest most frostilicious part of a harvest if the test sample were coming from me.

I think testing is interesting and interesting to find out wich cannabinoids do what, but I persobally think weed is so personal and so complex, that the best way to breed a strain for a specific ailment wouldn't be testing and breeding for certain cannabinoids, but working together with patients who have this ailent, and first ask them what strain helps them best at the moment ab=nd wich effect they think will help them best, then develop a strain acording to these guidelines, and then select by letting those patients test it and select what helps them best
just like a breeder who breeds for a certain effect because he likes that effect the most, opposed to a breederwho just breeds fr the highest THC-content(or CBD, wich it seems is becoming the new craze, I'm wondering what the next will be, maybe THCV or CBG?)
ofcourse testing could maybe help a bit and certainly give good insights in cannabinoids, but I don't think testing and selecting for certain cannabinouids should be the main method and goal for breeding
cannabis is a herb, not a pharmaceutical drug, and herbs rely a lot on experience rather then tests, even tough we can determine their active ingredients
I think the failure with marinol etc is a sign that focussing on one cannabinoid is the wrong aproach, IMO we should be looking at the plant(or bud) as a whole, determining the effect of the weed as a whole instead of solely be different cannabinoids, also because there are so many complex relationships that we don't know them all yet

 

[Purpl3_Haz3]

I think if cannabis is to be used seriously as medicine and not just for recreation, testing is paramount. It is the first step in being able to target what components of the plant have what effects and remedy what ailments. Then one can breed plants targeted at certain conditions or groups of conditions rather than just what gets you the most baked (this is already occurring to a small degree). Another key thing with testing is screening the bud to make sure it is safe and free from adulterants (chemicals, parasites, etc.).

Overall testing is the future and I feel that it is quite important. Testing is important but one still must rely on the good faith of the grower and distributor either way. Hopefully the dispensary sends out a few random buds to be tested rather than the best one they can find. I know if I were a grower I'd probably send the dankest most frostilicious part of a harvest if the test sample were coming from me.

I think testing is interesting and interesting to find out wich cannabinoids do what, but I persobally think weed is so personal and so complex, that the best way to breed a strain for a specific ailment wouldn't be testing and breeding for certain cannabinoids, but working together with patients who have this ailent, and first ask them what strain helps them best at the moment ab=nd wich effect they think will help them best, then develop a strain acording to these guidelines, and then select by letting those patients test it and select what helps them best
just like a breeder who breeds for a certain effect because he likes that effect the most, opposed to a breederwho just breeds fr the highest THC-content(or CBD, wich it seems is becoming the new craze, I'm wondering what the next will be, maybe THCV or CBG?)
ofcourse testing could maybe help a bit and certainly give good insights in cannabinoids, but I don't think testing and selecting for certain cannabinouids should be the main method and goal for breeding
cannabis is a herb, not a pharmaceutical drug, and herbs rely a lot on experience rather then tests, even tough we can determine their active ingredients
I think the failure with marinol etc is a sign that focussing on one cannabinoid is the wrong aproach, IMO we should be looking at the plant(or bud) as a whole, determining the effect of the weed as a whole instead of solely be different cannabinoids, also because there are so many complex relationships that we don't know them all yet

I agree with you about the personal experience, in opposition to pharmaceuticals(being just tested). But, where strains vary from harvest to harvest, this patient - grower thing would have to be on going, and would still be on a per patient basis....with testing like my dispensary uses (budgenius.com) they can say definitively what the difference is between strains, and each harvest...this seems to provide a more constant baseline from which a patient and supplier/grower can work with...

Since having access to my dispensaries med info (thc, cbn, and cbd) on budgenius, I have found I can have a fairly good idea of what to expect from the meds before hand. It has taken enough of the 'stab in the dark' out of picking meds, that I can just get one strain at a time, rather than a little bit of a few different strains.

 

[OO]

i'm gonna advocate against using lab analysis to predict experiences, for the reason that the interactions between the different cannabinoids are still not well understood.

the only way to predict the effect is take your typical dosage, and administer by your typical method.

this is the only way you can be effective in predicting the outcomes IMHO.

 

[wilf789]

I agree that taking it yourself is the ultimate way to judge, but that's not really predicting until after you've first actually tried it. This may seem like a small matter but depending on factors like price it can be important.

Would also like to see more research into the interaction between cannabinoids, but at the end of the day it's individual biological difference that affects effects the most IMO

 

[djonkoman]

I think if cannabis is to be used seriously as medicine and not just for recreation, testing is paramount. It is the first step in being able to target what components of the plant have what effects and remedy what ailments. Then one can breed plants targeted at certain conditions or groups of conditions rather than just what gets you the most baked (this is already occurring to a small degree). Another key thing with testing is screening the bud to make sure it is safe and free from adulterants (chemicals, parasites, etc.).

Overall testing is the future and I feel that it is quite important. Testing is important but one still must rely on the good faith of the grower and distributor either way. Hopefully the dispensary sends out a few random buds to be tested rather than the best one they can find. I know if I were a grower I'd probably send the dankest most frostilicious part of a harvest if the test sample were coming from me.

I think testing is interesting and interesting to find out wich cannabinoids do what, but I persobally think weed is so personal and so complex, that the best way to breed a strain for a specific ailment wouldn't be testing and breeding for certain cannabinoids, but working together with patients who have this ailent, and first ask them what strain helps them best at the moment ab=nd wich effect they think will help them best, then develop a strain acording to these guidelines, and then select by letting those patients test it and select what helps them best
just like a breeder who breeds for a certain effect because he likes that effect the most, opposed to a breederwho just breeds fr the highest THC-content(or CBD, wich it seems is becoming the new craze, I'm wondering what the next will be, maybe THCV or CBG?)
ofcourse testing could maybe help a bit and certainly give good insights in cannabinoids, but I don't think testing and selecting for certain cannabinouids should be the main method and goal for breeding
cannabis is a herb, not a pharmaceutical drug, and herbs rely a lot on experience rather then tests, even tough we can determine their active ingredients
I think the failure with marinol etc is a sign that focussing on one cannabinoid is the wrong aproach, IMO we should be looking at the plant(or bud) as a whole, determining the effect of the weed as a whole instead of solely be different cannabinoids, also because there are so many complex relationships that we don't know them all yet

I agree with you about the personal experience, in opposition to pharmaceuticals(being just tested). But, where strains vary from harvest to harvest, this patient - grower thing would have to be on going, and would still be on a per patient basis....with testing like my dispensary uses (budgenius.com) they can say definitively what the difference is between strains, and each harvest...this seems to provide a more constant baseline from which a patient and supplier/grower can work with...

Since having access to my dispensaries med info (thc, cbn, and cbd) on budgenius, I have found I can have a fairly good idea of what to expect from the meds before hand. It has taken enough of the 'stab in the dark' out of picking meds, that I can just get one strain at a time, rather than a little bit of a few different strains.

for orientation it's a nice tool indeed, but I think it shouldn't be used as primary tool fir breeding
and indeed it would be best if the grower-patient relationship is ongoing
but it would already give significant result I think if a breeder would work together with a group of patients(multiple patients with the same ailment to ensure a more widely aplicable strain, suitable for most with that soecific ailment)
and after enough generations this would result in a fairly stable strain, there should be some checking to ensure it still aplies to that ailment over time but once you get it stable that's already a big step I think

 

[djonkoman]

I think if cannabis is to be used seriously as medicine and not just for recreation, testing is paramount. It is the first step in being able to target what components of the plant have what effects and remedy what ailments. Then one can breed plants targeted at certain conditions or groups of conditions rather than just what gets you the most baked (this is already occurring to a small degree). Another key thing with testing is screening the bud to make sure it is safe and free from adulterants (chemicals, parasites, etc.).

Overall testing is the future and I feel that it is quite important. Testing is important but one still must rely on the good faith of the grower and distributor either way. Hopefully the dispensary sends out a few random buds to be tested rather than the best one they can find. I know if I were a grower I'd probably send the dankest most frostilicious part of a harvest if the test sample were coming from me.

I think testing is interesting and interesting to find out wich cannabinoids do what, but I persobally think weed is so personal and so complex, that the best way to breed a strain for a specific ailment wouldn't be testing and breeding for certain cannabinoids, but working together with patients who have this ailent, and first ask them what strain helps them best at the moment ab=nd wich effect they think will help them best, then develop a strain acording to these guidelines, and then select by letting those patients test it and select what helps them best
just like a breeder who breeds for a certain effect because he likes that effect the most, opposed to a breederwho just breeds fr the highest THC-content(or CBD, wich it seems is becoming the new craze, I'm wondering what the next will be, maybe THCV or CBG?)
ofcourse testing could maybe help a bit and certainly give good insights in cannabinoids, but I don't think testing and selecting for certain cannabinouids should be the main method and goal for breeding
cannabis is a herb, not a pharmaceutical drug, and herbs rely a lot on experience rather then tests, even tough we can determine their active ingredients
I think the failure with marinol etc is a sign that focussing on one cannabinoid is the wrong aproach, IMO we should be looking at the plant(or bud) as a whole, determining the effect of the weed as a whole instead of solely be different cannabinoids, also because there are so many complex relationships that we don't know them all yet

I agree with you about the personal experience, in opposition to pharmaceuticals(being just tested). But, where strains vary from harvest to harvest, this patient - grower thing would have to be on going, and would still be on a per patient basis....with testing like my dispensary uses (budgenius.com) they can say definitively what the difference is between strains, and each harvest...this seems to provide a more constant baseline from which a patient and supplier/grower can work with...

Since having access to my dispensaries med info (thc, cbn, and cbd) on budgenius, I have found I can have a fairly good idea of what to expect from the meds before hand. It has taken enough of the 'stab in the dark' out of picking meds, that I can just get one strain at a time, rather than a little bit of a few different strains.