11 minute read
Don’t Abandon Full Spectrum CBD Oil for THC
THC may be the focus, today, but don’t duck out on full spectrum CBD.
As states have brought their legal cannabis programs online, both recreational and medicinal, many people have found themselves wondering what the purpose of CBD products is now that high-THC cannabis strains are available.
CBD
No Cannabinoid left behind
The tendency to focus on THC and over-inflate its importance is nothing new. Since prohibition in the 1930’s, the obsession over THC has been allencompassing. The government banned cannabis because of THC and its effects. The black market chased ever higher THC numbers as a way to cater to their client base. Everyone and their dog knew that THC was the thing in cannabis that “got you high.”
So, it begs the question: What is the purpose of CBD products now that I can get a high-THC cannabis strain instead?
Time and again it has been shown that full spectrum cannabis – i.e. cannabis that contains all of its compounds and cannabinoids in natural ratios – is the most impactful form for medicinal use. Humanity has understood this for over 10,000 years. Cannabis was used for wellness and ritual by countless societies throughout our history. Only recently have we allowed it to be stolen away and hidden by governments more interested in control and money than in healing people. The duh is implied.
WENDY MENDENHALL WRITER
THC
squeaks the loudest. But when it comes gaining maximum health benefits, it’s not the be all, end all.
Even in this new age of high-THC strains and all their preparations from dabs to edibles, there is, and there must be, room for the rest of the cannabinoids.
Not everyone wants to deal with the psychotropic effects of THC in pursuit of wellness. In fact the very idea that you have to be high to get the benefits is outdated!
With high-CBD strains the psychotropic effects can be mitigated or removed. With correct dosing options one can take a high-CBD strain in the mornings, and then a high-THC preparation before bedtime, completely bypassing the mind-altering effects (since you are asleep) while reaping the medicinal benefits. With raw flower preparations we can take advantage of the acids present in cannabis, and allow our body to convert these acids into their respective cannabinoids at completely different ratios and concentrations.
There is an entire world of carboxylic acids, cannabinoids, and terpenes: THCA, CBGA, CBDA, CBCA, CBGVA, THCVA, CBDVA, CBCVA, CBDH, CBC, CBCV, CBDV, CBGV, THCV, CBN, myrcene, limonene, caryophyllene, terpinolene, pinene, humulene, ocimene and linalool, to name just a few.
Each and every one of these plays an important role in the power of the cannabis plant to balance our Endocannabinoid System (ECS). There is room for high-THC and high-CBD products to flourish in unison, supported by the rest of the 483 compounds we’ve found so far in cannabis.
So definitely get your medical cards, but don’t be fooled into thinking THC is the golden egg.
For far too long THC has overshadowed everything, to our collective detriment. Now is the time to take cannabis back from the misleading attempts to split it apart and monetize every last compound, and place it front and center where it has been for the majority of human history, in all of its full spectrum glory. SBC
Delta 8 pyramid scheme
Continued from page 65
Does Less Psychoactive Mean Less Effective?
One of the most intriguing properties of Δ8-THC is its ability to work like Δ9-THC, without the same level of psychoactivity. Based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence, estimates of exactly how psychoactive it is vary widely, from 3 percent to 67 percent the psychoactivity of Δ9-THC.1,9,10 The mechanisms of action are not well-studied, but what research has been done has shown them to have very similar pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics to Δ9-THC.
What this means is that it is working in the same way, on the same receptors – 3 percent to 67 percent less effectively. So while Δ8-THC is less psychoactive than Δ9-THC, that is likely simply because it is less effective across the board.
Is Δ8-THC Legal?
Thanks to its extremely low occurrence in nature, Δ8-THC inhabits a legal grey area. It is listed by the DEA (along with THC, Δ9-THC, Dronabinol, “and others”) as a Tetrahydrocannabinol, which is a Schedule I controlled substance. However, in August of 2020, the DEA implemented an interim ruling to modify the code of regulations to add language stating that the “definition of ‘Tetrahydrocannabinols’ does not include ‘any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that falls within the definition of hemp set forth in 7 U.S.C. 1639o.”
The definition of hemp that they are referencing specifically cites hemp as Cannabis sativa with a Δ9-THC concentration of less than 0.3 percent. By this definition, if the substance has over 0.3 percent Δ9-THC, any Δ8-THC present is a Schedule I drug, yet if the substance has less than 0.3 percent Δ9-THC, even high concentrations of Δ8-THC are not controlled.
So, why is Δ8-THC suddenly so popular?
First of all, most manufacturers are synthesizing it from CBD. With the influx of hemp biomass in 2020 and plummeting prices across the market, that means it can be made at a fraction of the cost of growing medical cannabis and extracting Δ9-THC. Compared to Δ8-THC, research on CBD is plentiful and promising. Study after study shows its many benefits, and its mechanisms of action are becoming clearer as the evidence mounts. CBD, however, is ubiquitous these days, and it is not psychoactive. It’s easy to see why producers might get excited about a way
Negotiating with Terrorists 2021 Legislative Update:
Continued from page 19
The other medical cannabis bill to receive the governor’s signature was SB 192, introduced by Utah Senate Majority Leader, Evan Vickers. SB 192 makes a host of changes to Utah’s medical cannabis laws, most of which are centered around Utah’s medical cannabis industry as opposed to patient and medical providers.
One major change under the wording of SB 192 is the creation of the “Cannabis Production Establishment Licensing Board.” The Board will consist of six total members, five of whom will be voting members. The voting members will include one member of the public, one member with knowledge and experience in the pharmaceutical or nutraceutical manufacturing industry, one member representing law enforcement, one member that the organization representing medical cannabis patients recommends and a chemist who has experience with cannabis and who is associated with a research university.
The Board will be tasked with reviewing and approving applications for medical cannabis production establishment licensure. It will also hold public review hearings where a production establishment proposes a change in ownership by an interest of 20 percent or more, changes or adds a location, upgrades to a different licensing tier, changes extraction or formulation standard operating procedures, adds an industrial hemp processing or cultivation license to the same location as the cannabis production establishment’s processing facility or as otherwise necessary. The Board will also meet every December to consider license renewal applications from the various cannabis production establishments.
As it relates specifically to cultivators, SB 192 authorizes a cultivation licensee to apply for a one-time, permanent increase of up to 20 percent of the cultivation facility’s cultivation space. This amends a prior version of the law that allowed a cultivator to make such a request each year. In addition to requesting a permanent increase in cultivation space, a cultivator may also apply for a short-term increase in cultivation space of up to 40 percent. Such a short-term increase shall not exceed one year. The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food may approve the aforementioned requests following a review. Among the other
changes applicable to cultivators proposed by SB 192 is a requirement that a cultivation facility may not produce more than 120 kilograms of cannabis concentrate from industrial hemp waste in a single year.
Turning to medical cannabis processors, SB 192 prohibits a processor from incorporating cannabis concentrate into a cannabis derivative product until the cannabis concentrate undergoes testing by an independent laboratory. A processor is also prohibited from transferring cannabis or a cannabis product to a medical cannabis pharmacy until the cannabis or cannabis product undergoes testing by an independent lab. The same applies to a medical cannabis pharmacy.
SB 192 puts in place additional advertising restrictions for medical cannabis production establishments, pharmacies, and PMPs
The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food will be tasked with “defining the standards for a cannabis production establishment’s name and log to ensure a medical rather than recreational disposition.”
The same holds true for medical cannabis pharmacies in regard to their names and logos. PMPs, except through a website, may not advertise that the individual dispenses medical cannabis. For educational events, a medical cannabis pharmacy may use a medical practitioner who is licensed in another state or a country as a presenter, or, if the presentation relates to a cannabis topic other than medical treatment or medical conditions, an individual approved by the Utah Department of Health, “based on the individual’s background and credentials in the presented topic.” Previously, only those individuals 21 years of age or older were allowed to attend education events. SB 192 makes an exception for those 18 or older that are medical cannabis card holders.
Medical cannabis pharmacies will likely see the most impactful changes under SB 192.
Initially, in the event that one or more of the 14 proposed medical cannabis pharmacies is not operational on or before June 1, 2021, the Utah Department of Health is directed to rescind any notice of intent issued by the Department in regard to licensing or revoke a license that has already been issued. A fifteenth medical cannabis pharmacy license will also be made available under the wording of SB 192. The fifteenth pharmacy must be located within Daggett, Duchesne, Uintah, Carbon, Sevier, Emery, Grand, or San Juan County.
As part of its operational requirements, pharmacies will need to take steps to ensure that its PMP “reviews each medical cannabis transaction before dispensing the medical cannabis to the cardholder in accordance with pharmacy practice standards.”
Pharmacies are further directed to provide “an opaque bag or box for the medical cannabis cardholder’s use in transporting the [medical cannabis] container in public[.]” A patient transporting a medical cannabis container in public is required to keep the container in the opaque bag or box provided by the pharmacy.
Patients should also be aware of some of the changes enacted by SB 192.
Pharmacies will now be required to communicate dispensing information to the controlled substances database. Likewise, the Utah Department of Health must record the issuance or the revocation of a medical cannabis card (including a caregiver card) in the controlled substance database. Patients are also obligated to possess their medical cannabis “in the container in which the cardholder received the medical cannabis from the medical cannabis pharmacy,” and patients “may not alter or remove any label” from the container received from the medical cannabis pharmacy. Patients will also be interested to learn that medical cannabis devices may be sold by businesses other than those licensed as medical cannabis production establishments or medical cannabis pharmacies. SBC
THE GREEN PHARMACIst
Continued from page 59
I trust that patients can select their own products and agents can properly scan the barcode to sell them products. There is no need for a pharmacist to double-check each transaction. If the state wants to audit something, I’d encourage them to audit pharmacist availability to patients. If the state wants more pharmacist involvement, I’d encourage them to require pharmacies to offer follow-up consultations. In my opinion, it is not appropriate or legal for the pharmacists to force patients to follow specific orders from a medical provider for a schedule one substance like cannabis. The provider can review purchase history at any time and at follow-up visits they can decide if they wish to renew the recommendation. We need to start treating our patients as adults rather than criminals. Instead of focusing on the image of our program we should focus on how we can get the best patient outcomes. I would encourage everyone involved in this industry to consider the needs of the patients over politics, money, and personal or professional interests.
How can you help fight for safe and legal access?
I have seen frustrated pharmacists and pharmacy operators challenging these new changes for months and they are working hard fighting for your right to safe and legal access. Patients can help us pressure lawmakers and the health department to support patient autonomy in cannabis dosing and product selection like other states. The excessive enforcement that our lawmakers are striving for will bring unnecessary barriers to the medical patients of Utah. Whatever harm they are trying to prevent with these rule changes is nothing in comparison to the harm that comes from an overly restrictive program that denies patients the best treatments for their medical conditions. SBC
