You say 'wet' bud won't get you as high as dry bud -- and for the reason that the cannabinoids have not become active?
I am unsure of why you attempted to so grossly oversimplify the situation here, and really, your statement is very misleading to people that really don't understand the science behind cannabis.
Are you speaking of decarboxylation -- the conversion of THC-acid into active THC? You decarboxylate the cannabis when you hit it with a lighter, cook it into food, or vaporize it.
Now, this 'potency' issue of using on partially dried cannabis, that would only apply if you decided to eat it raw.
What are you doing? At least explain the situation more. What you said is true, in a way, but the practicality of your answer is rendered invalid upon realizing that 99%+ of cannabis is decarboxylated before or during its use by the consumer, with or without proper drying of the flowers.
From Wikipedia (decarboxylation): Heating or pyrolysis of ?9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid yields the psychoactive compound ?9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.[1]
You know what the reference is for that wiki? An article Mr. Rosenthal wrote on decarboxylation that was in cannabis culture magazine back in 2003. Link here: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2794.html
I understand that by thoroughly drying your cannabis you can 'assume' (key word there...) that it has decarboxylated nicely. Knowing, or rather assuming that, would make one expect that any THC-acid that hasn't been decarboxylated might be rendered active by the heat from however you choose to prepare or administer it. In that way, you would achieve the most efficient use of the plant.
However, how much THC-acid loses its carboxyl group from JUST the heat of a lighter and becomes active? 80%? 90%? 95%+? This is some data I would like to see. Maybe it's my fault for wanting to know. From all the digging I've done in trying to get the most information I can, I've been vastly disappointed by 'simple' answers. Maybe those can hold over a beginner, but what about the people that really care about this and the science behind it?
Submitted by Jon Stotz () on Mon, 10/26/2009 - 12:13.
Lack of information.
You say 'wet' bud won't get you as high as dry bud -- and for the reason that the cannabinoids have not become active?
I am unsure of why you attempted to so grossly oversimplify the situation here, and really, your statement is very misleading to people that really don't understand the science behind cannabis.
Are you speaking of decarboxylation -- the conversion of THC-acid into active THC? You decarboxylate the cannabis when you hit it with a lighter, cook it into food, or vaporize it.
Now, this 'potency' issue of using on partially dried cannabis, that would only apply if you decided to eat it raw.
What are you doing? At least explain the situation more. What you said is true, in a way, but the practicality of your answer is rendered invalid upon realizing that 99%+ of cannabis is decarboxylated before or during its use by the consumer, with or without proper drying of the flowers.
From Wikipedia (decarboxylation): Heating or pyrolysis of ?9-Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid yields the psychoactive compound ?9-Tetrahydrocannabinol.[1]
You know what the reference is for that wiki? An article Mr. Rosenthal wrote on decarboxylation that was in cannabis culture magazine back in 2003. Link here: http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2794.html
I understand that by thoroughly drying your cannabis you can 'assume' (key word there...) that it has decarboxylated nicely. Knowing, or rather assuming that, would make one expect that any THC-acid that hasn't been decarboxylated might be rendered active by the heat from however you choose to prepare or administer it. In that way, you would achieve the most efficient use of the plant.
However, how much THC-acid loses its carboxyl group from JUST the heat of a lighter and becomes active? 80%? 90%? 95%+? This is some data I would like to see. Maybe it's my fault for wanting to know. From all the digging I've done in trying to get the most information I can, I've been vastly disappointed by 'simple' answers. Maybe those can hold over a beginner, but what about the people that really care about this and the science behind it?