Mississippi lawmakers last week approved a bill mandating changes to the state’s Medical Cannabis Act, the bill to legalize medical marijuana that was passed by the legislature last year. The measure, House Bill 1158, now heads to the desk of Republican Governor Tate Reeves for his consideration.
Republican Senator Kevin Blackwell, a Republican and one of the bill’s authors, said that the legislation clarifies provisions of Mississippi’s medical marijuana law, which was passed by state lawmakers in 2022.
“Unfortunately the Department of Health in their rules and regs probably accepted some things that were not intentioned by the bill,” Blackwell said on the Senate floor on March 8. “So we are trying to correct those … and we do so in the bill.”
The primary author of the legislation, Republican Representative Lee Yancey, gave an example of a rule enacted by state regulators that would be rolled back by House Bill 158 if the governor signs the legislation.
“The Board of Medical Licensure began implementing additional requirements for doctors to be able to certify people, so… and that was not in the bill. So, it was not our intention for there to be any additional requirement,” said Yancey, who noted that the bill is designed to help Mississippi’s medical marijuana program operate more smoothly. “So, they have to do those eight hours the first year, and then there’s five hours of continuing education every year after that. We felt like that was sufficient just to keep them apprised of what the new research was showing.”
In an attempt to prevent similar discrepancies between state laws and regulations passed by state agencies in the future, the measure also includes language designed to prevent regulators from passing rules that do not comply with the state’s medical marijuana statute.
“No state agency, political subdivision or board shall implement any rule, regulation, policy, or requirement that is contrary to the provisions of the Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act,” reads the text of the bill.
Bill Makes Several Changes To Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act
House Bill 1158 also makes investigations by state agencies, including citations issued by the Department of Health, confidential until an investigation into the matter has been completed. An earlier version of the bill kept such records out of public view indefinitely, but some senators argued that keeping such material off the public record for any length of time is not acceptable.
“I think if it was put out in transparency, it would dispel any of the back and forth on social media,” said Republican Senator Angela Burks Hill, one of five senators who voted against the bill. “I think hiding that is only going to fuel that speculation.”
The bill also makes the physical address of all medical marijuana companies except dispensaries confidential. During public hearings on the legislation, Yancey said the provision was designed to protect the security of cannabis operators, who often must keep large quantities of product and cash onsite.
House Bill 1158 also requires the Mississippi Department of Health to approve a patient’s application to use medical marijuana within 10 days, a reduction from the current requirement of 30 days. The change was enacted to help address a backlog in processing applications by the agency.
Other changes include allowing patients to conduct follow-up visits with a doctor other than the one who first approved the medical marijuana recommendation without experiencing a lapse in certification or access to medicinal cannabis. Additionally, medical professionals who have approved a patient to use medical marijuana are now permitted to assist them with filling out the required state application for a medical marijuana identification card.
Another provision of the legislation allows dispensaries to sell topical medical cannabis products that can not be ingested to adults 21 and older without a medical marijuana identification card. The bill also allows licensed medical marijuana dispensaries to sell hemp-derived products that are legal under federal law, including low-THC CBD formulations. The bill also specifies that hemp products are not subject to control by the state’s Medical Cannabis Act.
The bill also permits the Department of Health to contract with private laboratories to conduct compliance testing of medical marijuana products. Such labs, however, are not permitted to conduct commercial analyses for licensed medical marijuana businesses. Under the legislation, labs conducting testing for licensed medical marijuana businesses are permitted to become licensed cannabis transporters or to contract the services of an independent licensed transporter.
The legislation also allows licensed medical marijuana businesses to use marijuana imagery in company logos and other branding. Photographs of medical marijuana products for sale may be posted online by dispensaries.
House Bill 1158 received final approval from the Mississippi legislature on March 14. The bill now awaits action from the governor.
I spotted them the moment I walked into legendary Berkshires dispensary Theory Wellness’ busy Great Barrington, MA location. There, almost as if they were smiling at me, these smartly designed and packaged small cans of joy, had me at hello; well, “hi,” to be precise.
Theory Wellness’ popular flavored cannabis-infused drinks are elevating the seltzer game, no question. One way is alluded to, again, smartly, in the name: The all-natural, gluten-free, hangover-free, zero-calorie concoction actually “works” in five minutes (avoiding the, “I don’t feel anything; I’ll have another” trap). You feel the effects of either the regular (44 mg THC) or light (18 mg THC) offerings fast—Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote fast.
The question is, “How does it do that?” Theory Wellness credits its nano-emulsification process that allows them to bind THC to water (previously not possible since most edibles are fat-soluble), resulting in a faster onset of the effects, which takes the waiting game out of edibles. No wonder they’re flying off the shelves.
Hi5 Lemon is a fast-acting, revolutionary cannabis drink with zero calories.
Within six months of its debut, the dispensary had sold more than 700,000 cans of Hi5 in all six flavors—including two seasonal flavors of pineapple (Summer) and cranberry (Fall)—and they’re also available in 45 dispensaries across Massachusetts.
“The Hi5 brand has been an incredibly fun project,” says Thomas Winstanley, Theory Wellness’ Vice President of Marketing. “A lot of the development happened during COVID where we were longing for interaction, social connection and missing the good times with friends. That comes through on the brand, and I think consumers enjoy it because it’s the perfect product for social consumption as we all begin to reconnect with one another.”
What better way to reconnect than to give (or receive) a Hi5? Hands up, people!
This story was originally published in issue 42 of the print edition of Cannabis Now.
The question over how breast milk is affected by drug intake is big these days, what with all the prescription and non-prescription drugs flying around. The same issue technically goes for other animals, including cows; which have the designation of providing us milk. A recent study shows how cows that consume cannabis, have cannabinoids like THC and CBD in their milk. Is this okay for cows? And could this be anew way to use cannabis?
Drugs passing into breast milk
When it comes to human childbearing, there are certain issues that arise in terms of how to protect a fetus from chemicals. There is sometimes bickering over what can cross the amniotic sac and get to the baby. Likewise is the argument that a breastfeeding mom is likely to pass on the chemicals she ingests to her baby byway of breastmilk. As of yet, while mothers are often warned away from drugs like cannabis, evidence of it being damaging when consumed in breast milk is inconclusive at best. But that doesn’t mean other drugs can’t cause harm.
It’s even said that if you’re a woman breastfeeding who wants to do certain drugs, like “amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine or heroin, you should not breastfeed for 24 hours after use.” And that for things like smoking or drinking, that breast feeding should come first. In fact, if a woman feels her breast milk is unclean, she can ‘pump and dump’, meaning pumping out a round, so that new clean milk is produced.
It’s generally recommended not to drink or take drugs within the first month of breast feeding, and some women maintain this for the entirety of the breast feeding experience. Of course, there are so many prescriptions that we take for so many things, that these days, its sadly hard to imagine that many babies get through without exposure to something.
Hey, thanks for coming our way. Get your direct updates via the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter; and take advantage of a wide array of deals on cannabis flowers, vapes & smoking devices, edibles, cannabinoid products (e.g. delta-8), amanita mushroom products, and a lot more stuff. Go on and make yourself feel good.
The reason this happens is because many compounds can pass through biological membranes, so long as they’re not too big (like insulin). The drugs are transferred from the mother’s plasma to the milk through passive diffusion across the membranes. This transfer is effected by things like protein binding, lipid solubility, and ionization. When the mother’s plasma protein binding is low and with high lipid solubility, this transfer is strongest. The other issue is that milk has greater acidity levels than plasma, which lets drugs with weak bases transfer more easily (think amphetamines and opioids).
This is the issue as seen for human mothers in our society. But it exists in another arena. We’re big drinkers of cow milk (whether it makes sense or not), and the same idea applies. If a cow is fed specific drugs, how likely are they to end up in the cow milk that we then consume? A recent study highlighted the ability for THC and other cannabinoids to be transferred to cow’s milk, when the animals are fed hemp.
The study on THC passing into cow’s milk
In November 2022, this study was published in Nature Food, called Transfer of cannabinoids into the milk of dairy cows fed with industrial hemp could lead to Δ9-THC exposure that exceeds acute reference dose. The idea was to establish if cannabinoids get transferred through animal milk (and in what amounts), when industrial hemp is used in animal feed products. In order to shine some light on the topic, this study was done by feeding cows hemp.
Researchers “collected and analyzed milk, blood plasma and feces, measured physiological parameters and observed animal behavior.” They also used “a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry-based analytical technique that ensures differentiation between Δ9-THC and Δ9-THCA in various matrices,” which “enables quantification of the cannabinoids Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabivarin (Δ9-THCV), CBD, cannabinol (CBN), cannabidivarin (CBDV) and the two Δ9-THC metabolites 11-hydroxy-Δ9-THC (11-OH-THC) and 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-THC (THC-COOH).”
The data collected was then used to “develop a predictive toxicokinetic model, which can be used to simulate other exposure scenarios and to assess the transfer of different cannabinoids into cow milk when using industrial hemp as a dietary supplement for dairy cows.”
What did the study find in terms of cow health when ingesting hemp?
Researchers specifically used Holstein Friesian dairy cows, and first partially replaced their corn silage with hemp silage, which came from the whole plant and had a low cannabinoid level. This was the adaptation phase. After this, they were fed hemp silage which came from the cannabis leaves, flowers and seeds, and which contained high levels of cannabinoids. This was the experimental phase.
Cow milk is a product of what cows are fed
This experimental phase was done at two different levels. Group L was fed 0.84 kg a day for the low hemp group; and group H was fed 1.68 kg a day for the high hemp group. After this came a final phase – depuration, in which no hemp was given and the cows cleaned the hemp from their systems.
Results show that when fed up to .92kg/day from the lower cannabinoid hemp option (standard industrial hemp used in adaptation phase), there was no difference in physiological parameters or overall health issues. On the other hand, cows fed the higher cannabinoid hemp did experience effects in both experimental groups. Both feed intake (and therefore) milk production went down greatly after Day 2 with both groups. Results also showed that respiratory rate and heart rate both went down in a matter of hours for both experimental groups. With some animals, they fell enough to be considered bradypnea or bradycardia.
Changes were also seen in the animals’ behavior and physical appearance. They had greater tongue play, yawned and salivated more, had more nasal secretions, experienced reddening and prolapse of the nictitating membrane (third eye lid), and appeared tired. Some animals in the higher consumption group stood abnormally, and for longer periods of time; and walked unsteadily and carefully.
All changes to the cows lasted until about two days after the hemp feeding stopped. The hemp didn’t affect basic milk constituents like fat and lactose, nor did it affect body temperature or body weight. To be clear, these cows were not fed a normal amount of THC, even for their body sizes. They were fed approximately 86X (per their sizes) the minimum amount of THC to cause adverse effects in humans. This makes the health results a bit questionable in term of what should actually be expected. Other studies have not shown negative reactions with standard industrial hemp feed.
Cannabinoid transfer when cows are fed hemp
The cow milk was tested after hemp consumption. During both the adaptation phase and experimental phase, “measurable levels of ∆9-THC, ∆9-THCA, ∆9-THCV, CBD, CBN and CBDV in cow’s milk” were found. On the last day of the cleaning out phase, THC and CBD were still detected in the breast milk. Other cannabinoids were not detected during any of the study. When compared to corresponding blood plasma levels, delta-9 THC was found at concentrations 6-26X higher after the experimental period, whereas it was 3-5X higher for THCV, and 11-32X higher for CBD. This implies the cannabinoids can accumulate in the milk.
Not all cannabinoids seemed to accumulate though. THCA and CBDV didn’t show this, and CBN couldn’t be detected in plasma, so no comparison was made. Though urine was collected, there were some issues that essentially kept it from being evaluated and used in the data; so all information that could have come from that, is missing.
THC is naturally infused into milk when cows eat hemp
Study investigators concluded that “Our study shows that feeding cannabinoid-rich industrial hemp silage made from leaves, flowers and seeds leads to a decrease in feed intake and milk yield in dairy cows.” In terms of cannabinoids passing into milk, they go on to say that “The toxicokinetic modelling has shown that the transfer rates of the examined cannabinoids from feed to milk were less than 1%.” Let’s remember, these cows were fed huge amounts of cannabinoids like THC, so 1% is still a lot under the circumstances.
They go on, “Nevertheless, due to the high feed intake, cow’s milk reached substantial levels of Δ9-THC such that the exposure might exceed ARfD in some population groups in our exposure scenario based on the transfer properties presented here.” They also stipulate, “For other cannabinoids, in particular for CBD, which was present in high amounts in industrial hemp (and thus also in cow’s milk after feeding), the data are currently insufficient, thereby preventing an assessment of possible health risks.”
Conclusion
This is an interesting study which backs up what we already kind of knew, that some constituents of the cannabis plant should make it into cow milk when hemp is eaten. One of the issues with the results however, is that the cows were fed such large amounts of THC. When fed the lower THC hemp, there were no issues, indicating the likelier feed option, probably won’t cause a problem.
Regardless, it does go to show that milk can be engineered to have cannabinoids, by changing the diet of the cow. However we should remember that cows are living things, and using them to produce natural THC infused milk, brings up even more ethical issues, than the ones that come with the existence of the industry in general. Perhaps this is a good reminder of the on-the-horizon synthetic milk, which is yet another strange breakthrough in the general milk industry; though also not one without a lot of controversy.
Hello everyone! Welcome to Cannadelics.com; a news source focusing on independent coverage of the expanding cannabis and psychedelics fields. Chill with us whenever possible to stay up-to-date on important stories, and subscribe to our Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, to ensure you always know what’s going on.
A recent study claimed to show vaped CBD is more harmful than vaped nicotine, and while several news outlets have reported on it, they all missed numerous flaws in the methodology. As a result of numerous confounding variables, there is no way to actually show that any of the harms they found were from CBD, and not one of the many other chemicals in the oil. High Times spoke to several cannabis vaping experts in an effort to nip this story in the bud, and stop it before it can spread further.
Seeing Through the Hazy Cloud of Vaped Variables
Rather than test a range of CBD and nicotine products, Dr. Yasmin Thanavala and her colleagues only looked at one CBD and one nicotine product, using the same Juul device to aerosolize both. The study was done on groups of ten mice, and rather than direct inhalation, the mice were in chambers filled with vapor. Things got off to a rocky start, with Table 1 showing the CBD sample used propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) and the nicotine sample used medium chain triglycerides (MCT), yet every other part of the study reported the CBD sample used MCT and the nicotine sample used PG/VG.
Source: “Not All Vaping is the Same: Differential Pulmonary Effects of Vaping Cannabidiol Versus Nicotine”
Dr. Thanavala told High Times “that is an error in Table 1,” confirming the CBD sample used MCT oil, which is banned by five legal cannabis states due to concerns over EVALI-like symptoms. Despite being “aware that ~ 5 states have banned MCT oil as a vape additive,” Dr. Thanavala and her colleagues used a CBD sample with MCT. Paradoxically, given their choice to use samples with MCT, VG, and PG, the researchers noted that “any respiratory toxic effects of vaping could potentially be exacerbated by the presence of other constituents,” like MCT, VG, PG, and terpenes.
Dr. Jeff Raber is the CEO, CVO, and a co-founder of the cannabis analytical laboratory, the Werc Shop, and is an expert on vaped cannabis and common vape additives. “VG/PG blends can be irritating to the vapor pathway,” which is one reason why they are not widely used in the cannabis industry today. Dr. Raber said “the concern with MCT is that it could stay in the lungs and lead to lipid pneumonia,” which is normally caused by “long chain fats” with over 40 carbons in their chain, cautioning “we don’t know the ‘magic number’ on what is safe to inhale.” Dr. Raber is an advocate for using alternatives that are “naturally in the plant” like terpenes or cannabinoids, and thinks terpenes are a great alternative to PG, VG, or MCT.
Dr. Peter Grinspoon is a primary care doctor, cannabis specialist at Harvard Medical School, and author of the upcoming book Seeing Through the Smoke. Dr. Grinspoon echoed some of Dr. Raber’s concerns, “I can’t see the rationale for dissolving them in different solvents, as the solvents themselves could be responsible for some of the findings.” Dale Gieringer Ph.D. is the Director of Cal NORML and a vaporizer research pioneer, who told High Times, “It’s impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about vaped CBD from this study.”
The next thing you see in Table 1 is there are a dozen terpenes in the CBD sample and seven terpenes in the nicotine sample, which all are “confounding variables,” in other words, potential sources for the supposed harm of CBD which were not controlled for by their study. When asked about their attempts to limit the myriad of confounding variables, Dr. Thanavala said, “Our goal was to test commercial pods the way a user would.”
“That’s a fair point to test the pods consumers buy,” said Dr. Raber “but they did not clearly delineate that the CBD was the culprit.” Dr. Raber then fired off some questions for the researchers: “How pure was the CBD? Could it be the combination of that formula with that hardware? How consistent was the hardware made? How was it stored? Did they use a new battery or an old one?” Dr. Raber noted the “time and cost limitation to studies” but would have preferred to see “2-3 different CBD and tobacco samples tested to see if they all behaved the same way.”
When pressed about the variables clouding their data, Dr. Thanavala told High Times, “Our goal was not to dissect out the effects of the individual components.” As that was their goal, one major question remains: Why did they “dissect out” the CBD and blame all the reported harms on it? If they truly wanted their study to demonstrate real-world harms of consumer-available products, they should have reported on that, rather than singling out CBD, which their study was not constructed to control for.
Designing a Better Study
Dr. Raber had an easy solution to control for the numerous confounding variables,“they could have gotten rid of concerns by just filling the cartridges themselves.” That would allow them to test terpene and solvent free samples, limiting confounding variables significantly. As a result, Dr. Raber was “disappointed” and felt they didn’t run “the right blanks and controls.” He also brought up a meta level issue of risks vs. rewards. Any potential harms need to be weighed against the potential benefits in what Dr. Raber called a “medicinal cost benefit risk analysis.” Considering the benefits of cannabis will be one way to improve a follow up study.
Another confounding variable they did not properly control for was the temperature samples were heated to. When asked if they knew how hot their samples got, Dr. Thanavala pointed to their supplemental section, which only had information on the room temperature, not device temperature. A 2021 study found that some “vape pens” heated to temperatures far above the point of combustion (450 °F, 232 °C), in worst cases as high as 633 °F/334 °C when containing liquids or 1000 °C when dry heating the coils. “Temperature is a key parameter but very hard to determine,” said Dr. Raber, because the temperature around the coil is hotter than the vapor stream.“The rate of molecular change doubles every 10 degrees celsius you go up,” said Dr. Raber, “a jump of 50 degrees can lead to a lot of changes.” The study hinted to these concerns saying, “Numerous potential degradation byproducts were detected … suggesting that both products are susceptible to high temperatures.” The CBD sample “may have been more susceptible to thermal degradation compared with nicotine product.”
One final way to improve their methodology is to use more accurate puff topography. “At present there is no information on CBD user topography,” said Dr. Thalanavala, so their study “followed the same puffing protocols for both products.” They did note that “users of cannabis-based vaping products may use these products in a very different way than nicotine vapers.”
Arnaud Dumas DeRauly is the CEO of the Blinc Group, and Chair of the ISO & CEN Vaping Standards Committees, and has researched cannabis user puff topography. DeRauly told High Times that this study used a puffing regime similar to Coresta Recommended Method 81, which “is totally different” than what Blinc’s research showed. In the study, “Animals were exposed … to a total of 20 puffs generated over 1 hour (1 puff every 3 min), 5 days/week.” Blinc’s research found that, while rates were different for U.S. and Canadian cannabis consumers, most needed only 20 puffs per day rather than 20 puffs per hour like the mice. Beyond puff topography, DeRauly was critical of the decision to use the Juul atomizer for both samples, and said “the Juul coil is not compatible with lipids like CBD oil.” Finally, DeRauly pointed out that one of the researchers, Maciej L Goniewicz, received funding from Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, which the study noted was “outside of this work.”
Source: “Blinc Group and Labstat”
Mice: Nice Animals, Definitely Not Humans
As previously mentioned, this was a study done on small groups of mice, which means the results might not even be generalizable to the broader population of rodents, let alone, humans. While Dr. Thanavala said that ten mice per group is an “adequate group size,” the study’s discussion section said “larger numbers of mice could have further strengthened our study conclusions.” Dr. Raber viewed the findings as “not generalizable” and said, when it came to rodent lungs and humans, “It is a model, it is not an exact replica.” The mouse lung is not just smaller than human lungs, it “is considerably different in structure,” namely, while both mice and humans have five lobes in their right lung, “unlike the human the mouse has only a single left lung.” Research on mouse lungs also shows they lack “mast cells in the peripheral lung” and “extensive pulmonary circulation.”
Another way this study could be improved is to actually do it on humans, which currently is very difficult due to the federal ban on cannabis research with a positive hypothesis. If a researcher sought to prove the claim that vaped CBD is more harmful than nicotine, they could be eligible for funding, but if they wanted to disprove that claim, they would not. While a lot of research is done on mice, in the words of the recently deceased Father of Cannabis Research, Raphael Mechoulam, “Mice are nice animals but they are definitely not humans.”
Raphael Mechoulam, the first person to synthesize THC, earning him the moniker the “Father of Cannabis Science,” has died, Analytical Cannabis reports. He was 92 years old, and his legacy will most certainly live on for centuries to come. The esteemed chemist is also called the father of cannabis research. Some of his additional game-changing contributions to drug science include isolating and synthesizing other cannabinoids, such as cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabichromene (CBC).
While THC, CBD, and CBG are basically household names today, that would not be the case if it weren’t for Dr. Mechoulam, so smoke one out for him in remembrance. A medicinal chemistry professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel, his work laid the groundwork and got the ball (or blunt) rolling to prompt future breakthroughs, such as illumination into the human body’s internal cannabinoid receptors in the 1980s and ’90s, as detailed in the 1993 academic paper titled Molecular characterization of a peripheral receptor for cannabinoids.
Make sure to pay your respects today, as Dr. Mechoulam’s friends and fellow scientists are, as you pass the peace pipe around with your buddies. “This is a very sad day for me, for the science community and for the cannabis community. Professor Raphael Mechoulam or as we called him Raphi, was one of the greatest scientist[s] I ever met and was my teacher and mentor in many aspects. I truly believe he [deserved] a Nobel prize!” wrote David “Dedi” Meiri, an associate professor at Technion, the Israel Institute of Technology, and one Mechoulam’s colleagues, in a touching online statement. “Thank you Raphi for all the great things you did and discover[ed] in your life and thanks for all the help and support you gave me. Rest in peace my dear friend,” he continues.
Born in Sofia, Bulgaria, in 1930, Mechoulam and his family relocated to Israel, where he began studying chemistry. His inspiration to start his successful hunt for THC began after wise observance of other drugs’ mechanisms. In an interview with CNN in 2014, Mechoulam pointed out that: “Morphine had been isolated from opium in the nineteenth century, early nineteenth century, cocaine had been isolated from coca leaves [in the] mid-nineteenth century. And here we were, mid-twentieth century, and yet the chemistry of cannabis was not known. So it looked like [an] interesting project.” According to the National Library of Medicine, in 1964, he succeeded. And the story behind how Mechoulam obtained the cannabis he studied may surprise you.
While working as a chemist in the early 1960s at the Weizmann Institute, Mechoulam got some weed from the Israeli police with his goal already in place: to discover and isolate what makes pot psychoactive. Once THC and other cannabinoids, such as the aforementioned CBD and CBG, were identified, in 1992, Mechoulam and his team discovered the chemical arachidonoyl ethanolamine, which you know as anandamide (derived from the Sanskrit word ananda, which means bliss). Anandamide is something our body’s endocannabinoid system produces on its own (as if we are built to use cannabis) and activates the CB1 receptor.
Deeply passionate and hardworking, Mechoulam continued his research right up to his death. At the age of 88, at the cannabis conference CannMed in California in 2019, he announced another breakthrough, synthetically stable cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), the main phytocannabinoid in fiber and seed-oil hemp, which contains anti-inflammatory, anti-convulsant, and anti-cancerogenic properties, and that’s likely just the tip of the iceberg. “We have taken the unstable acid molecules of the cannabis plant and synthesized them to provide a stable, consistent basis for researching new therapies across a wide range of medical needs,” Mechoulam explained at the conference. He also used his stage time to encourage the scientific community to invest more into cannabis research, as enough time has already been lost, citing the many people from the past who would have vastly benefited from medicinal cannabis should it have been available. “Did we have to wait 30 years? No,” he said. “We could have helped thousands of children, and we didn’t.”
Rest in Power, Dr. Mechoulam, and may everyone lucky enough to have access to the results of his work enjoy the power of plant medicine today.
A recent study conducted by Washington State University (WSU) examined how CBD could potentially help curb cigarette smoking. It was originally published in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology on Jan. 10, but the university shared a press release about its findings on Feb. 16.
“The whole mission is to decrease harm from smoking, which is not from the nicotine per se, but all the carcinogens and other chemicals that are in tobacco smoke,” said Philip Lazarus, Senior Author and WSU Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences. “If we can minimize that harm, it would be a great thing for human health.”
The study found that CBD slowed many nicotine enzymes, including the enzyme CYP2A6 which metabolizes more than 70% of nicotine in smokers. The researchers found that CBD inhibited the activity of CYP2A6 by 50%. “In other words, it appears that you don’t need much CBD to see the effect,” Lazarus said.
Lazarus and his team are currently working on a clinical study to learn more about how CBD can affect nicotine in smokers by measuring a participant’s nicotine levels in their blood between a six-to-eight-hour period. Eventually, the team hopes to expand their research efforts to examine CBD and nicotine addiction on a larger scale as well. The most recent study was conducted with the help of a grant from the National Institute of Health.
In August 2021, researchers at Mydecine Innovations Group signed a five-year research agreement with Johns Hopkins University to analyze how psychedelic formulations could help smokers overcome smoking addiction.
However, many cigarette smokers are just moving to cannabis consumption instead. The annual Gallup Consumption Survey published in August last year found that only 11% of Americans identified as cigarette smokers, and 16% identified as cannabis consumers. The percentage of cigarette smokers is at it’s lowest percentage yet since Gallup began asking the questions in the 1940s. In 1947, when asked if participants have smoked cigarettes in the past week, 41% said yes. In 1949 the percentage rose to 44%, and reached a height of 45% in 1954.
“Smoking cigarettes is clearly on the decline and is most likely to become even more of a rarity in the years ahead,” said Gallup Author Frank Newport about the newest results. “This reflects both public awareness of its negative effects and continuing government efforts at all levels to curtail its use. Smoking remains legal in general but is prohibited in many public places, offices, modes of transportation and in private places across the U.S. Each pack of cigarettes carries draconian warning messages about their harmful effects.”
An Australia-based study found similar results with residents preferring cannabis to smoking tobacco. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare analyzed data from 2019 in its newest analysis, and found that 20% of respondents support regular cannabis use, and only 15% support tobacco use.
Legislators in some states such as California are introducing bills to ban tobacco completely. Assembly Bill 935, which was recently introduced by Assemblymembers Damon Connolly and Evan Low, would ban tobacco products for anyone born after Jan. 1, 2007. “Preventing the next generation of Californians from becoming addicted to smoking should be a priority for anyone who cares about public health and the well-being of our children,” Connolly said.
A ruling by an Italian court earlier this month represents a huge break for the country’s hemp and CBD industry.
The decision made by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court on February 14 overturned what the panel deemed an “‘absurdly restrictive’ decree [that] meant hemp leaves and flowers were considered narcotics in the eyes of regulators.”
The upshot is that the decision “means that Italy’s national law now no longer contravenes the 2020 Kanavape ruling of the European Union’s Court of Justice (ECJ).”
In that ruling, the Court of Justice of the European Union “ruled that CBD is not a narcotic and that a member state cannot restrict the free movement of CBD products, and that CBD can be derived from the hemp flower.”
The decision by the Lazio administrative court earlier this month also means that Italy’s CBD and hemp industry, which led this court challenge, are now empowered to operate more freely, and without fear of regulatory meddling.
“In May 2022, four grassroots cannabis industry associations – Canapa Sativa Italia, Sardinia Cannabis, Resilienza Italia Onlus and Federcanapa – filed an appeal against a Ministerial Decree issued in January 2022. The decree in question amended an earlier decree from 2018 regarding the cultivation, harvesting and processing of medicinal plants. Effectively, the 2022 amendment sought to place the cultivation, processing and marketing of ‘non-narcotic’ hemp flowers and leaves back under the umbrella of narcotics, meaning operators would be required to seek authorisation from the Ministry of Health, or face penalties.”
Recreational cannabis remains illegal in Italy, although it is decriminalized.
An effort in Italy last year to legalize recreational pot was stymied on legal grounds, when the country’s Constitutional Court “rejected a request to hold a referendum on legalising the cultivation of cannabis, provoking the ire of promoters who called the decision a blow to democracy,” according to Reuters.
The proposed referendum “sought to legalise the growing of weed for personal use and ease sanctions on other cannabis-related crimes, with offenders no longer risking prison sentences for selling small amounts of the drug,” Reuters reported at the time, noting that the court’s president “said the referendum included other narcotics considered to be hard drugs, which could not be liberalised.”
Medical cannabis, however, is legal in Italy, and its production is the exclusive domain of the country’s military.
Medical cannabis that is not grown domestically by the Italian army is typically imported from other European countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark.
The army’s ramp-up of cannabis production is designed to make Italy’s medical marijuana program more self-sufficient.
“The next step is self-sufficiency — that’s our ambition,” Nicola Latorre, who leads the Italian agency overseeing the cannabis operation, told DefenseNews last month.
But this month’s ruling by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court could also have implications on that arrangement.
Cannabis industry representatives told BusinessCann that the Italian Ministry of Health has taken a more positive position toward the importation of cannabis-based products, a shift that suggests “that the Italian army’s monopoly on cultivation of medical cannabis in Italy, which has consistently been unable to supply enough product to meet demand, could soon be broken.”
The High Times Hemp Cup is an annual competition where hemp cultivators, processors, and brands around the country submit their products for a chance to win the title of the best hemp-derived product. The judge kits are distributed across the country for consumers to test and judge each product inside of their kit. This year, the competition has become more interesting as new psychedelic product has made its debut in the competition, the Amanita HHC Gummies, the Amanita Delta 8 Joint and the Amanita CBD Joint, all from Amanita Muscaria mushroom, a legal trending psychedelic product, sold online.
Al three products are produced by PsiloMart which becomes the first legal magic mushroom company to submit entries for the 2023 High Times Hemp Cup. The company believes that there is an entourage effect between cannabis and mushrooms that needs to be explored, which led them to create a new “Amanita +” line of Muscimol mushroom products blended with hemp-derived cannabinoids. Since the Hemp Cup is the “People’s Choice” edition, we need to wait and see what will be the score given to these products. However, the inclusion of these Amanita Muscaria products in the High Times Hemp Cup competition is a testament to the high demand expected for blended cannabis and psychedelic products.
The new Amanita mushroom products
The new Amanita Hemp Cup products include Amanita HHC gummies, Amanita Delta 8 THC joint, and Amanita CBD joints. These products are also available for purchase directly from the supplier, with the option to use the “Cannadelics” coupon code to save an additional 20%.
Amanita HHC Gummies
One of the Amanita + products submitted to the 2023 High Times Hemp Cup is the Amanita + HHC Magic Mushroom Gummies. These lab-tested gummies contain 25 mg of HHC, a simplified version of THC, and are dipped in Amanita Muscaria mushroom chocolate. The combination of HHC and muscimol from Amanita Muscaria mushrooms creates a unique experience for users.
Another two product submitted to Hemp Cup are the Amanita CBD joints and the Amanita Delta 8 joints. The Amanita + CBD Mushroom Joints, include Amanita Pantherina powder blended with organic indoor hemp flower for a total of 250 mg. The Amanita Delta 8 joint features a blend of Amanita + Delta 8-infused hemp flower with muscaria powder coating on the outside for a total of 500 mg. This product is the more potent one, as it includes both Delta 8 THC and Amanita Muscaria extract, both psychoactive.
Thank you for stopping in. Head over to our weekly newsletter, the Cannadelics Sunday Edition for a weekly digest of our best stories, and get access to the best cannabis and psychedelic products!
Simply write your email below:
Keep yourself updated with the latest Amanita HHC gummies, as well as more cannabis and psychedelic products: Subscribe to our newsletter
More on Amanita HHC gummies
Amanita HHC gummies are a new addition to the line of muscimol-infused products, which combines the psychoactive effects of Amanita muscaria mushrooms with lab-tested hemp-derived cannabinoids.
Each gummy contains 25mg of HHC (hexahydrocannabinol), a simplified version of THC, that is dipped in Amanita muscaria mushroom chocolate. This is an interesting blend, as it allows you to experience cannabis and mushrooms at the same time.
Amanita HHC gummies offer a fun yet relaxing experience, somewhat dissociative in nature, with a warm and tingly feeling body high, and a bit of auditory enhancement. As it contains Amanita extract, you can also expect to get some kind of psychedelic experiences, memory flashbacks and changes in the way you experience the world arround you, so use it with caution.
To get your hands on these Amanita HHC gummies, click here and use the “cannadelics” coupon code at checkout for a 20% discount.
Amanita muscaria, a legal magic mushroom, also known as Fly Agaric, or simply, Amanita mushroom, is a member of the family of fungi, of the genus Amanita. Although it can be found all over the world today, Amanitas are native to the temperate and boreal regions of the Northern Hemisphere, which includes Europe, North America, and Siberia – where they can be found growing under various types of deciduous and conifer trees, such as birch and pine.
The active ingredients in Fly Agarics are muscimol and ibotenic acid. Muscimol works by activating the major inhibitory neurotransmitter system, gamma amino butyric acid (GABA). As an inhibitory system, muscimol suppresses the activity of certain neurons in the brain, which is how the psychoactive effects are produced.
The ibotenic acid, which is responsible for the sickness and “toxicity” commonly reported from these mushrooms, converts to muscimol during decarboxylation (through the application of heat). If Amanita products are prepared correctly, then at least 70 percent (preferably more) of the ibotenic acid will become muscimol.
The High Times Hemp Cup is a nationwide competition for the best hemp-derived products. Hemp cultivators, processors, and brands submit their products into the competition, which are then packaged by High Times into assorted Judge Kits. These judge’s kits are then distributed across the country for consumers to test and judge each product inside of their kit.
The judge’s kits are available for purchase online, and judges will have until April 2nd to explore their kits and test out the various different products received. They will fill out questionnaires and submit their responses, which will be tallied up in time for the cup that takes place on April 16th.
Amanita HHC gummies and Amanita Delta 8 joints – Final Thoughts
The inclusion of Amanita Muscaria products in the High Times Hemp Cup showcases the growing demand for these unique products. The combination of muscimol from Amanita Muscaria mushrooms with popular cannabinoids like HHC, Delta 8 THC, and CBD creates a new and exciting experience for users. This is a major change as never before psychedelic products were included in this competition and we look forward to see the results of the High Times Hemp Cup. Remember, these products can also be bought directly from the supplier, with the option to use the “Cannadelics” coupon code to save an additional 20%.
What do you think? Will Cannabis + Amanita products prove to be an important part of our psychedelic routine? Share your thoughts below.
We appreciate you stopping in at Cannadelics; where we work to bring you the best in independent news coverage for the cannabis and psychedelics spaces. Visit us regularly for daily news, and sign up to the Cannadelics Sunday Edition, for our weekly digest of the best stories, so you’re always on top of what’s going on.
So what are you waiting for? Click the links above and enter the code “Cannadelics” to save 20% on your order. And be sure to subscribe to our newsletterfor access to awesome deals on cannabis and psychedelic products. Get high responsibly and enjoy the Amanita HHC Gummies today!
It’s been an ongoing battle for a couple years now, with one side (the industry) claiming synthetic (hemp-derived) cannabinoids are legal, and the other (the government) saying they are not. Now, we have a little more clarity on the legal front, which backs up what is consistently said. The DEA recently made a statement that synthetic cannabinoids are illegal, even if hemp-derived.
What are synthetic cannabinoids?
Synthetic cannabinoids can be looked at two ways, and its up for debate how illegal they are. One is that they’re compounds that never existed in nature, and were just made in a lab. When we think of the word ‘synthetic’, that’s the general thought. But there’s another way to see synthetics. If the parts to build something are extracted from a plant, but then go through some sort of synthetic processing, or are put together with other parts that are synthetic; can the product be considered natural? Unfortunately, the US rarely regulates the term.
Truth is, there isn’t a ‘standard’ definition for ‘synthetic cannabinoid.’ Nor, for ‘natural’. Does it mean the whole thing is synthetic? Does it mean part of it is synthetic? Does it mean that at some stage synthetic processing is used? I don’t know because no one does. Far as I can tell, if comparing it to where we do have regulation, like ‘organic‘ regulation, or ISO regulation (International Organization for Standardization), for food or cosmetics, once something unnatural is involved (or involved past a point), it changes the definition.
Right now, the best I can say is that a synthetic cannabinoid relates to any cannabinoid with some amount of synthetic parts or processing, regardless of whether its capable of showing up in nature on its own; but I’m not the authority. Sure, something like delta-8 is naturally-occurring, but not in high enough amounts to extract for product production. It therefore requires synthetic processing for pretty much anything sold. Does it matter if it shows up in nature if we’re using a synthetic version?
Cool to have you with us. We’ve got the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter to get you email updates; and which comes with loads of promos for cannabis buds, vapes and related equipment, edibles, smoking paraphernalia, cannabinoid compounds (HHC, delta-8), and too much more. Head our way for all your cannabis-related shopping!
When it comes to the cannabinoid industry, this becomes problematic due to the definition of hemp; a definition that seems to stipulate any product must come from the plant directly, to be legal. As only ‘hemp’ by definition was legalized, anything that doesn’t fit into the definition, is not considered ‘hemp’, which implies illegality. What about products for cosmetics, food, medication, or treatment of any kind? FDA maintains control, so trying to sort out a hemp definition, or a synthetics definition, doesn’t even matter.
Recent DEA announcement
The back and forth is a little silly, although, to be fair, none of these compounds seem to pose much threat (the government is cool with opioids, remember). Their main ruling-out is more likely a desire to cut into a black market that the government doesn’t profit from, than the oft-touted government line that they’re dangerous (I mean, lowering guidelines for prescribing opioid medications? Come on…)
Are these synthetic cannabinoids a problem? It’s a dirty market sure, but as very few health issues seem to relate to compounds, and instead have to do with things like additives (which can be regulated out to produce cleaner products), the government line about danger is a bit misplaced. Perhaps just a move of subterfuge to get eyes away from the government’s own complicity in the opioid issue, which its involved in by continuing to allow them through regulation. But this article isn’t about whether we agree, its about the fact the government did make clear its position, even if we don’t agree.
Recently the government made an action to back up what it already said time and time again. On February 13th of this year, as reported by Marijuana Moment, the DEA zeroed in specifically on delta-8 THC-O and delta-9 THC-O, along with other synthetic cannabinoids, reminding that they’re illegal. The DEA says both these compound fail to meet the definition of hemp, and are therefore Schedule I controlled substances.
The DEA didn’t make a formal announcement. It did what it, and other government agencies, have done a couple times before; and simply replied to a person/organization that asked a question. In all cases, the answer was then posted as if to say the government organization had made a formal announcement, which it did not. In this case, the person asking the question was attorney Rod Kight, who wrote to the DEA last year about delta-8 THC-O and delta-9 THC-O legality, with a recent follow-up in 2023.
The DEA finally answered via letter by Chief of DEA Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, Terrence L. Boos, on February 13th. It stated “Delta-9-THCO and delta-8-THCO are tetrahydrocannabinols having similar chemical structures and pharmacological activities to those contained in the cannabis plant.” And that they “do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically, and therefore do not fall under the definition of hemp.”
Extracts made into synthetic cannabinoids, are illegal
Following this, on his blog post, Kight stated: “Although I do not always agree with the DEA’s view on cannabis matters, I agree with this opinion and, frankly, am not surprised. This is what I have been saying for a while.” He continued, “I have been concerned about the proliferation of THC acetate ester (THCO) for a while. It has always been my view that THCO is a controlled substance under federal law. Although it can be made from cannabinoids from hemp, THCO is not naturally expressed by the hemp plant. It is a laboratory creation that does not occur in nature, at least not from the hemp plant.”
Did anything new happen? Nope. Did the DEA make a formal announcement? Nope. Did it say anything it hasn’t said before? Nope. While the DEA itself is pretty bad at responding to many things related to drugs, even to the point of getting sued (lets remember it took Kight a year to get a response), it does seem that sometimes the issue is not liking the answer, more than not getting one.
When else did a government response make headlines as an announcement?
Twice in 2021, for two different reasons. One was about the legal nature of synthetic delta-8 THC (which is pretty much any delta-8 used in products), and CBD, which is often assumed to have a greater level of legality than it actually does.
In terms of delta-8 THC, in September, 2021, the Alabama Board of Pharmacy via Donna C. Yeatman, R.Ph., the executive secretary, requested an answer from the DEA about the legality of delta-8, since there was so much contention on the subject in the media. The DEA didn’t say anything new, just repeated what it has before. It relayed once again that any synthetic does not fit under the definition of hemp.
Yeatman’s original letter was dated August 19th, 2021, and the response was dated September 15th, 2021. The response brought Yeatman through a logical process, starting with “D8-THC is a tetrahydrocannabinol substance contained in the plant Cannabis sativa L. and also can be produced synthetically from non-cannabis materials.” Then after explaining THCs, and their place in Schedule I, it continued, “Thus, D8-THC synthetically produced from non-cannabis materials is controlled under the CSA as a “tetrahydrocannabinol.””
Realistically, if delta-8 could be appropriately sourced to not require synthetic processing, then it would fit the farm bill definition of hemp. But we know delta-8 only exists in minuscule amounts, and requires the kind of processing for product production, that takes it away from this definition. This doesn’t mean that it’s not ‘hemp-derived’, but that term doesn’t rule out synthetics at all. Of course, should the government ever want to clearly define what constitutes ‘synthetic’ when it comes to cannabinoids, we could have fewer of these arguments.
‘Hemp-derived’ implies synthetic cannabinoids
Another government response statement about CBD
The second example of a letter response from a government agency detailing an already stated policy, had to do with CBD and how it can be used. It happened in regards to Steve Brown, of the Minnesota Cannabis Association board, and a conversation about tinctures and processing facilities that happened in a meeting. Said Brown, “They stated later in the meeting that tinctures are illegal… Then this morning I received information from the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, sent by a colleague.”
What did it say? It contained a responses by the US’s Department of Agriculture via a representative, saying “The problem here is some of the products you’re mentioning here, Steven, would not be legal food by our definition… The reason for that is all these other cannabinoid products are governed by the Board of Pharmacy.”
Why does this matter? Because a ‘medicine’ (anything to treat something, including supplements), a food product, and a cosmetic, all must get approval by the FDA. It gets worse in terms of ‘supplements.’ Once an FDA approved medication is there, any active ingredient used, is barred from advertisement as a nutritional supplement. Meaning since the FDA-approved a CBD medication, Epidiolex, its not legal to sell CBD for any kind of supplemental, or medical use. As in, its not legally cleared to be used for internal products, or to treat anything, or for cosmetics products, or for food products.
If you caught on, it means it doesn’t matter whether the DEA says its illegal or not. Not when it comes to any consumer products in the categories above. Since all that is regulated by the FDA, whether delta-9-THCO, delta-8-THCO, CBD, or any other synthetic cannabinoids are illegal in general, has no bearing on whether they’re legal in products. Which makes any product containing cannabis compounds, automatically illegal, whether synthetic or not. This is actually a statement I can make, because the FDA never regulated a consumer product for these uses with any cannabis compound; aside from pharmaceutical medications.
In all of these cases, the government agency didn’t make a statement to the press, but had the answer to their question promoted as an answer to the general question people fight over. And in all cases, all that was done, was to point out already existing information to the entities who were confused. Perhaps it would be better if the public understood the difference between general legality (DEA) and product legality (FDA) when it comes to cannabis.
Conclusion
This isn’t actually news, but it is interesting to see the confusion that continues on the topic. We might not agree with the DEA, USDA, or FDA on these matters, but there are answers already for much of it. Are synthetic cannabinoids illegal? Maybe. Probably. But while that answer is murkier due to missing and finite definitions, whether the products that involve these compounds are technically legal or not, is less debatable. Even if we don’t agree.
Hello everyone! Welcome to Cannadelics.com; an independent news site in the cannabis and psychedelics spaces, which reports on the most fascinating stories going on today. Chill with us a lot to remain in-the-loop with what’s going on, and subscribe to the Cannadelics Weekly Newsletter, so you’re never late to get the news.
A new study from researchers at the University of New Mexico found that, for medical cannabis patients seeking the most effective symptom relief, it all comes down to the terpene levels.
The research, published in the Journal of Cannabis Research, found that “[s]ymptom relief was greatest after consumption of plant variants with slightly higher than average levels of the terpenes myrcene and terpinolene and non-detectable levels of CBD.”
“In contrast, chemovars with any detectable levels of CBD (e.g., MC61 and MC62) provided the least relief, the fewest positive side effects, and the most negative and context-specific side effects. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that naturally abundant CBD in Cannabis flower may act as an inhibitor of optimal treatment for certain health conditions such as gastrointestinal pain,” the authors wrote.
In their conclusion, they wrote that their “findings provide ‘proof-of-concept’ that a simple, yet comprehensive chemovar indexing system can be used to identify systematic differences in clinically relevant patient health outcomes and other common experiences across Cannabis flower products, irrespective of the product’s commercial or strain name.”
“This study was limited by self-selection into cannabis and app use and a lack of user-specific information. Further research using this chemovar indexing system should assess how distinct combinations of phytochemicals interact with user-level characteristics to produce general and individualized Cannabis consumption experiences and health outcomes, ideally using randomized methods to assess differences in effects across chemovars,” they wrote.
Terpenes are defined as “the primary constituents of essential oils and are responsible for the aroma characteristics of cannabis.”
“Together with the cannabinoids, terpenes illustrate synergic and/or entourage effect and their interactions have only been speculated in for the last few decades,” read a 2020 study published at the National Library of Medicine.
“Hundreds of terpenes are identified that allude to cannabis sensory attributes, contributing largely to the consumer’s experiences and market price. They also enhance many therapeutic benefits, especially as aromatherapy.”
As NORML noted in its own write-up about the study from the researchers at the University of New Mexico, preclinical data “demonstrates that select terpenes can modulate cannabinoid activity to produce enhanced therapeutic effects.”
NORML cited a case report “published late last year reported that an autistic patient responded more favorably to cannabis extracts containing select terpenes as compared to extracts without them.”
Participants in the study from the University of New Mexico self-administered the cannabis, and reported their results on a software program.
“The initial dataset consisted of 252,344 sessions recorded by 13,771 users between June 6, 2016 and March 11, 2021,” the authors wrote.
“Only the sessions using flower products (60.4% of total sessions) were included in the dataset, and 6.7% of the flower sessions included laboratory-provided information on the product’s terpene levels. Recorded potency levels for labeled THC, THCa, THCv, and THCva were aggregated (THC family), as were levels of CBD and CBDa (CBD family). To avoid confounding from user entry error, cutoff thresholds for cannabinoids and terpenes were selected based on the biological limitations of the Cannabis plant (Reimann-Philipp et al. 2020). The cutoff thresholds for reasonably labeled cannabinoid family levels were set at 35.0%/dry wt., and the cutoff for each of the 20 terpenes was set at 3.0%/dry wt. Sessions reporting levels that were higher than these cutoffs were excluded from the final analyses. Each product is unique at the user level, i.e., if two users were to purchase the same product, it would appear in the data as two separate products.”
