lvstealth said:

i understand that each strain has its own unique aspects that make it different. they have notable differing affects. i can see it, feel it, smell it and taste it.

so my question is:
is the THC in one strain the same chemical as all strains.

if i grab only THC from any plant will it be the same THC as others? not the same amount, but identical - so you cant tell what plant it came from if it is only THC. under the microscope

the theory on this is that all the other cannabinoids (not sure if that is the right term, but other components of the cannabis plant) come together to give each strain its differing "benefits".

is there any DNA sequencing on Cannabis? i find a few things here and there, but nothing indicating they have even looked at it much. i mean... we have a complete sequence on the neanderthal, pot has to be easier than that!

i would think someone would see the potential monetary return if you could CRISPR cannabis!!! that would make it easier to isolate the different components and see which does what. at this point, it seems there is nothing on pot, pretty much world wide. i find that odd. i could see how the USA got hoodwinked, but there are almost 200 countries - how can they all accept cannabis as "bad" with no scientific data?

im actually asking because of the QWISO. i tend to save all trim/larf together and make QWISO. from what i read, QWISO doesnt grab the other cannabinoids, just thc (in any of its states). not sure if that is right, i can make a batch that seems better than another. if it were just THC, and if all THC is the same THC all qwiso should be the same.

any good research youve stumbled across would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Thc is Thc, doesnt matter from which plant.
The 100 or so cannabinoids together will be responsible for the difference in effect, and also terpenes have their effect.
Its not true that with an extraction like Qwiso you only get Thc.
You extract all the cannabinoids available in the resin, for isolating Thc you would need a lab.
Hope that helps.

I think yes, it's a molecule with a molecular formula, so like any molecule, if that formula changes, it's not THC anymore, it's something else. Where are our scientific minded members? They'll sort this out lol.

lvstealth said:

i understand that each strain has its own unique aspects that make it different. they have notable differing affects. i can see it, feel it, smell it and taste it.

so my question is:
is the THC in one strain the same chemical as all strains.

if i grab only THC from any plant will it be the same THC as others? not the same amount, but identical - so you cant tell what plant it came from if it is only THC. under the microscope

the theory on this is that all the other cannabinoids (not sure if that is the right term, but other components of the cannabis plant) come together to give each strain its differing "benefits".

is there any DNA sequencing on Cannabis? i find a few things here and there, but nothing indicating they have even looked at it much. i mean... we have a complete sequence on the neanderthal, pot has to be easier than that!

i would think someone would see the potential monetary return if you could CRISPR cannabis!!! that would make it easier to isolate the different components and see which does what. at this point, it seems there is nothing on pot, pretty much world wide. i find that odd. i could see how the USA got hoodwinked, but there are almost 200 countries - how can they all accept cannabis as "bad" with no scientific data?

im actually asking because of the QWISO. i tend to save all trim/larf together and make QWISO. from what i read, QWISO doesnt grab the other cannabinoids, just thc (in any of its states). not sure if that is right, i can make a batch that seems better than another. if it were just THC, and if all THC is the same THC all qwiso should be the same.

any good research youve stumbled across would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's the same THC.
Yes, the genome has been studied. I don't know about complete sequencing.
I'm sure there will be GMO cannabis.
Cannabis is still illegal in most countries, including those that do most of the science. There are legal barriers to scientific research.

Have you used Google Scholar?

No, indica strains tend to have higher thc but there are exceptions, I usually grow strains 20%+ thc. Some or rather a few strains break the 30% mark, real purple kush is close to 30% depending on breeder. See pics

I say absolutely not.

Light sources have different radition.
The dna of a plant grown in the sun is different than say hps/mh or LED

This is really a good question. I tried searching it online and I haven't got a perfect answer. But in my opinion with this, probably it's the same THC chemical but maybe just different in THC level.

vancoast_ca said:

This is really a good question. I tried searching it online and I haven't got a perfect answer. But in my opinion with this, probably it's the same THC chemical but maybe just different in THC level.

Click to expand...

This is correct. Delta 9 THC is delta 9 THC, no matter what plant. But there are many cannabinoids in varying quantities in each strain/cross, along with varying amounts of terpenes and other constituents.

Surely you've heard of THC-a, CBD, CBD-a delta 8 THC, CBC, CBG, CBblahblahblah. Those are the chemical variations on the THC theme. I think something like 30 have been discovered, there could easily be more.

so the alcohol strips the other cannabinoids along with THC, right? and you get a QWISO goo with THC and whatever cannabanoids are there?

heat decarbs the THC, but heat destroys many of the other cannabanoids is there any scale, or chart or anything with the 400 plus cannabanoids listed? what or if they turn into something else as does thc when decarbed? i know 400 is a lot, but even 10 of them? or 3?, lol. i cant find any real data. i see a lot of people doing a lot of things and thinking what they think, id just like to see numbers and data.

mysticepipedon said:

Yes, it's the same THC.
Yes, the genome has been studied. I don't know about complete sequencing.
I'm sure there will be GMO cannabis.
Cannabis is still illegal in most countries, including those that do most of the science. There are legal barriers to scientific research.

Have you used Google Scholar?

Click to expand...

the genome to a very minor extent has been looked at. they can see in the DNA what our common ancestor is, that it is about 28 million yo and that it was influenced (and the guess is by humans) by intention as far back as 4k ya; but no real sequencing. they can tell plant gender, but funnily enough, just at that moment. a cannabis can change, not just throw some boy parts, but actually become boy and shows in its dna! again, this is not studied in real science, but it is studied!

if they had any sequences, the legal industry would have to genetically verify a strain is different enough to have a new name. as it stands now, you can name anything you want any name you want. it is demand driven naming.

i live by google scholar (and lots like it)! i find a few things in some Canadian Studies, and a few things coming out of some WA universities. WA is getting around some of the "cant study weed" laws by allowing students to do thesis on it. it is a technicality, since students are not licensed and can grow and smoke, so they can study it. but any college who gets federal money has some issue or another.

there is some uni in Mississippi that is allowed to keep some for study; but most say it is lacking in quality, cure, or drying considerations. it has to be ground up too, supposedly! so the US sucks, i get that, but how did it grow to world wide?!! youd think some country who loves liquor and grows coffee would add this drug to their list!

i can read lots about other plants and basic types and such, but cannabis is just not what it should be. other plants they know most of what there is to know, but some doesnt translate to weed. most studies want to show how bad weed is, so they dont test for any benefits.

detroitjoe said:

I say absolutely not.

Light sources have different radition.
The dna of a plant grown in the sun is different than say hps/mh or LED

Click to expand...

DNA isnt really like that. DNA doesnt change with light source.

sun helps make more/fewer of the trichomes and the strain is what makes the flavanoids and terpines (other cannabanoids) each plant has.

the thc is 1 of a gazillion other cannabanoids.
if trichs turn amber the thc is replaced with cbn. so you could have a low measured THC % and get higher than ... high things.

they know thc is not the be all of pot but they dont know much else. yet, that is all they test to/for.

Edinburgh said:

No, indica strains tend to have higher thc but there are exceptions, I usually grow strains 20%+ thc. Some or rather a few strains break the 30% mark, real purple kush is close to 30% depending on breeder. See pics

Click to expand...

that is not what i was trying to ask, 20% or 30% if it is a percent of something (THC) then the something (THC), if stripped off the rest of the plant would be the exact same molecular makeup as any other TCH anywhere. which would mean the determining factor of "highness" is not TCH but the other cannabanoids and probably in what order and amount.

as to 20 or 30%, when? depending on time of harvest, the trichs could be amber, a low thc but high cbn and it could be "better than sex" for some looking for that high.

i guess one issue is that everything is based on one of a gazillion things that could be the real "thing".

lvstealth said:

the genome to a very minor extent has been looked at. they can see in the DNA what our common ancestor is, that it is about 28 million yo and that it was influenced (and the guess is by humans) by intention as far back as 4k ya; but no real sequencing. they can tell plant gender, but funnily enough, just at that moment. a cannabis can change, not just throw some boy parts, but actually become boy and shows in its dna! again, this is not studied in real science, but it is studied!

if they had any sequences, the legal industry would have to genetically verify a strain is different enough to have a new name. as it stands now, you can name anything you want any name you want. it is demand driven naming.

i live by google scholar (and lots like it)! i find a few things in some Canadian Studies, and a few things coming out of some WA universities. WA is getting around some of the "cant study weed" laws by allowing students to do thesis on it. it is a technicality, since students are not licensed and can grow and smoke, so they can study it. but any college who gets federal money has some issue or another.

there is some uni in Mississippi that is allowed to keep some for study; but most say it is lacking in quality, cure, or drying considerations. it has to be ground up too, supposedly! so the US sucks, i get that, but how did it grow to world wide?!! youd think some country who loves liquor and grows coffee would add this drug to their list!

i can read lots about other plants and basic types and such, but cannabis is just not what it should be. other plants they know most of what there is to know, but some doesnt translate to weed. most studies want to show how bad weed is, so they dont test for any benefits.

Click to expand...

You have to understand the power the US has had in forcing other countries to keep Cannabis illegal, and to interfere with research.

Research costs money and canna industries still can't even use a bank. Universities can't research it without jumping through hoops, and no researchers are interested in using the bogus shit they grow in that Mississippi facility (which is still the required source for material). It's no surprise to me that the genome hasn't been fully sequenced. Remove these artificial obstacles and the research money will be flowing.

You guys are approaching the question incorrectly, first you have to completely understand how being high applies to your brain from a biological/scientific perspective, what biological and chemical components actually enter your blood stream and then out of all of those, which are even small enough to then further enter your brain cells and affect the synapses of the brain cell and the many lets call it hairs on the opposing synapsis and the fluid it resides in. So all though there are loads of cannabinoids found in Cannabis only a small amount of the cannabinoid types can make it in and affect your minds state. Now keep in mind the different ways different chemicals that can change mind state and what the difference is and whats happening in the brain cell when that state is in play. As an example, alcohol changes the viscosity of the fluid in the cell and it also makes the synapsis bend backward on themselves, increasing the distance the electricity (Your soul) has to jump in order for the cell to fire. This increase in distance and the change in viscosity makes the firing now slower and occasionally even miss firing, thus the high is a downer and why drunks act stupid and eventually pass out. :)

Now look a what happens when psychotropic chemicals jump into the ring for a match, the affect on the brain cell is completely different because of the chemicals properties the brain cell fluid changes viscosity again (I dont know all the various configuration differences between the different mainstream street drug highs and the state the brain cells are in and thus the high type/brain cell state is in during it, but we dont need to in this explanation for you to understand the reason DNA mapping and Gene sequencing wont change jack because the core components that are active in the state are not that many and have each individually been isolated by medical and scientific institutions. Most of the abused chemicals / street drugs out there that affect mind state originally come from a natural source, and from isolation and then breaking those down to detailed mapping is how the biotech industry has created synthetic derivatives of all of the "Get high chemicals/components" you might have abused in your life time.)

So while there are loads of cannabinoids, terpenes, and loads of other stuff only the select group that actually do something are considered. The next part of every high is not just the brains state but what your body does in that state. Yes the body part also defines the feel and the affect of the high. Each drug high makes your body release certain amounts of dopamine, now these chemicals induce muscle relaxation, affects nerve sensitivity, etc. Drugs that induce large amount of dopamine levels are the ones that are physically addictive. And the less a drug induces the less addictive it is. Yea theres the whole mentally addictive aspect but thats got nothing to do with the drug really but more the person taking it.

Now back to the differences in high between the different strains, some cannabinoids and even terps (This is a big debate in the industry) dont affect your mind state to any recognisable level, even when taken in larger more concentrated amounts. These lending more to flavour, colour, etc. and serve very different functions within the plant. Now consider that they make it into your brain cell but all they do is maybe ruffle the tiny hairs of the brain cell synapsis which is an effect but not one that changes mind state, but lets say the example strains a fruity one and its body high is not a heavy one that dulls the seances and the overall cell fluid viscosity is thinned out making synapsis movement easy and the cell fluids conductivity more positively charged allowing the brain cell to fire more frequently so the high is uplifting and even allows more focus and improves concentration and because of this makes the experience an upper and not a downer. Now lets say terpene that isnt considered as part of the get high group but flavour group, its affect moving only hairs right. But here is the kicker while synapsis are moving in their config and viscosity and charge are different whose to say that the small unnoticeable feeling in mind state when tested in its isolated form doesnt in fact make its small affect larger when acting at the same time with the others? Giving the high of that strain its difference. Indica being heavy on the body and Sativa not. Because the affect is so small isolated its hard the prove or disprove, So the argument of terps playing a role in the high goes on.

I tried to keep my explanation as Lyman as possible, so please dont bother asking me questions about how your brain interprets highs, its all available on google and edu portals. L8rs

Sorry forgot to add flavonoids.

Its untrue, the research of cannabis has increased exponentially with new technologies and applications. New frontier sciences like nanotech are only now starting to gain recognition. There are huge funds being put into it, and yes by huge I am talking billions. Frontier sciences are still in exploration and new properties are being discovered every day. The fact that its not publicly marketed in its publicity and only appealing to those in the field is why the general public doesnt know about it. Put this in your pipe and smoke it, in nanotech alone, they have now figured out a way to use hollow shell and pourus monocrystal formation to carry the specific mind altering cannabinoids past the digestive system and then only breaking down and releasing them when the nanocrystal material hits the blood stream breaking down when it comes into contact with whatever. Making the high of even weak THC level consumables kick you with the same strength high as a high quantity level THC edible because it doesnt break down when in your stomach acid. And the nanotech its self is created using green synthesis using cannabinoids as capping agents and crystal morphology (shape) control. Making the production of the nanotech cheap, environment friendly and sustainable. Thats target dosing orally, never achieved before and plays across the medicinal market as a new option for medicine delivery by big pharma. Not even a hundred years of advanced science towards fossil fuels has been able to achieve that, and you say there has been little research, pffffft!

Here are only some highlights, google them if you like...

"Industrial applications of Cannabis sativa (L.): Exploring its biological and nanotechnological potential"
"Cannabis sativa mediated palladium nanoparticles as an effective nanodrug against multi-drug resistant bacteria and A549 lung cancer cells"
"Photocatalytic dye degradation and antimicrobial activities of Pure and Ag-doped ZnO using Cannabis sativa leaf extract"
"Cannabidiol-Mediated Green Synthesis, Characterisation, and Cytotoxicity of Metal Nanoparticles in Human Keratinocyte Cells"
"Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticles Using Cannabis sativa Extracts and Their Anti-Bacterial Activity"
"Bimetallic nanoparticle production using Cannabis sativa and Vitis vinifera waste extracts"

And there is loads more....

​