THC, CBD and the misleading concept of “Potency”.

Some new research by Dr Zerrin Atakan and  Prof Philip McGuire has thrown some light on the way cannabis actually works by looking at the effects of THC and CBD – the two principal components of cannabis.

The fact that there are two major active components in cannabis means there’s a big problem for anyone trying to quantify it, which has meant the whole debate has been seriously misrepresented and therefore misunderstood for years.

For just about all other drugs of intoxication (or enlightenment depending on how you look at these things)  there’s really only one consideration: How much of the drug you take, ie the dose. Strong drugs simply give you more of the drug per gram, pint or whatever unit the drug is measured in. In other words, drugs generally consist of an active compound contained within a larger volume of something else which can be considered neutral.

Hence we have a very simple variable to talk about which we call “strength”. Even if they don’t really understand how it works, most people are familiar enough with this concept as it applies to booze and understand that a beer with a 3% ABV is a lot weaker than a beer with 10% ABV, even if they don’t know what a “% ABV”  actually means*. Most people know something else about “strength” as well, which is that although drinking a lot of weak beer will get you as drunk as drinking rather less strong beer,  getting drunk slowly isn’t the same as getting drunk quickly.

Hence we have a simple variable called “strength” which is widely understood and is nice an easy. This concept extends way beyond beer to include all the naughty drugs – Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, you name it the same logic applies, “stronger” means “higher dose” per gulp/snort/fix.

But when we come to consider cannabis we find things are measured differently and we find a new word is used: “Potency”. Whenever governments or their agencies start using a subtly different term for something you think you understand it’s always a good idea to ask why?

Last week’s blog looked at the Home Office study into cannabis potency which had a go at defining this “potency” concept. The definition the study gave was:

The potency of cannabis is defined as the concentration (%) of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)

Sadly it didn’t specify what the concentration is a percentage of, giving the misleading impression perhaps that a sample of herbal cannabis consists of upwards of 40% THC. Now, this is clearly not the case as a sample of herbal plant material plainly doesn’t consist of nearly half of THC, either by volume or by weight. No matter how strong the cannabis is, most of it is clearly plant material. Indeed, it’s pretty obvious that it doesn’t even consist of 5% THC by weight or volume because that would still be a huge amount of the psychoactive drug. So it’s clear that “potency” isn’t anything like the same concept as ABV.

Cannabis TrichomesAs we explained  briefly last week, the % THC figure is the proportion of the oils produced by the plant. The plant oozes oils – the pure resin – from glands known as “Trichomes” shown in the image left (from Cannabis Culture magazine).  It’s these tiny beads of oil which contain the active chemicals that make cannabis what it is and the “Potency” figure often quoted is the proportion of this oil which is THC.

Two important points flow from this:

1: Potency is not strength. Clearly you could have a sample of cannabis with very few globs of resin on, which would make it quite weak, although the resin it did contain could be high in THC, making it a high potency. Likewise a concentrated form of low potency cannabis  could deliver a large dose of THC, making it quite strong. A “concentrated form of cannabis” is known as Hashish, being the resin of the plant with far less vegetable matter included.

2: The THC is expressed as a percentage (by weight actually)  of the oils, there are clearly other substances in the oil. It turns out that one of the other substances known as CBD is very important when it comes to understanding just what cannabis does to the user.

UKCIA attended the two “Cannabis and Mental Health” conferences held in London in 2004 and 2007, you can see the reviews of them in the library section.  One of the more interesting presentations (for me) came from Dr Zerrin Atakan who was involved in a research project which finally reported last week, a short review of it can be seen here. The study undertaken by Zerrin Atakan and Professor Philip McGuire consisted of giving subjects a dose of THC or CBD or a placebo and examining the effects on the subject by both a series of standard tests and also by magnetic resonance imaging of the brain.

Professor Philip McGuire concludes, “These studies show that THC and CBD have distinct effects on brain function in humans, and these may underlie their correspondingly different effects on cognition and psychiatric symptoms.  Determining how the constituents of cannabis act on the brain is fundamental to understanding the role of cannabis use in the aetiology of psychiatric disorders.”

The really interesting thing about this is that CBD, which has never (before the recent Home Office study)  been routinely monitored turns out to be playing a significant role. Indeed, it’s almost the polar opposite of THC in its effects in some respects. If THC is linked to psychotic type episodes, CBD has anti psychotic properties. If THC is thought to cause panic attacks, CBD calms those impulses. Put in terms the Daily Mail could understand, if THC is “bad”, CBD is “good”.

The practical upshot of all this is that talking of cannabis simply in terms of “potency” is meaningless, we need a totally different and far more sophisticated way to describe it. The measure of “potency” as used by the government is simply not up to the job, which is no surprise really as it came from the law enforcement requirements of prohibition, not from concerns of public health.

Of course, all this isn’t news to experienced cannabis users. It’s long been known that the old skool hash from Morocco for example was laid back whilst some of the modern strains are somewhat “edgy” or “trippy”. But we can thank Zerrin and her team for providing the explanation  in terms of the effects of THC and CBD on the brain and providing the science behind the folk legend.

Although as we explained last week, UKCIA has serious reservations about the way the Home Office “potency” study collected its data and on its lax definitions it did show one interesting result which is relevant to this discussion; the THC/CBD balance of “traditional” hashish is very different to that of some herbal cannabis on sale in the UK. The traditional hash contained something like 5% THC and 3.5% CBD on average. Now what this means is the oils in the sample contained a total of 8.5% active ingredients and 91.5% uninteresting goo (an unknown proportion of which is probably added contamination). The valuable bit of information here isn’t the potency but the ratio of the two chemicals of 7 parts CBD to 10 parts THC. That isn’t too far off 50-50. It’s interesting to note that the composition of Sativex – the cannabis medicine – is 50/50 THC/CBD, a composition arrived at because it had the best effectivity with the minimum unplesant side efects.

The thing to note is that before the present policy followed by our government, most of the cannabis supplied to the UK was of this type. The prohibition policy so enthusiastically followed by our government has seen this replaced by strains much lower in CBD. So there we have an “unintended consequence” of prohibition, the suppression of a well balanced product and its substitution with something very different, but different in a way no-one thought important to monitor, much less control. Having caused this change in market share through the workings of prohibition, the government then uses the change to impose stronger prohibition.

With most – if not all – other drugs the control of the strength is important. With cannabis the composition in terms of THC and CBD is equally if not more important. This variable is determined primarily by the strain grown, in other words by the seeds sold.  If the government is really concerned about the potential for harm caused by the type of cannabis on sale in the country, controlling and properly regulating the seed suppliers is the way to go. Here we have some solid science to support that suggestion.

Thus far, the law has only served to make things potentially far more dangerous than it used to be whilst relying on a useless measurement which is widely misunderstood.


* % ABV means “the percentage of Alcohol by volume”, so 100 ml of 10%ABV plonk will contain 10ml of pure alcohol.


UKCIA is a cannabis law reform site dedicated to ending the prohibition of cannabis. As an illegal drug, cannabis is not a controlled substance - it varies greatly in strength and purity, it's sold by unaccountable people from unknown venues with no over sight by the authorities. There is no recourse to the law for users and the most vulnerable are therefore placed at the greatest risk. There can be no measures such as age limits on sales and no way to properly monitor or study the trade, let alone introduce proper regulation. Cannabis must be legalised, as an illegal substance it is very dangerous to the users and society at large.

40 thoughts on “THC, CBD and the misleading concept of “Potency”.

  1. Please can everyone stop being so narrow minded. There was never a primary cannabanoid and there certainly are not 2 primary cannabanoids now. All of them have equal value but people ingore this fact just to make things easier to understand. I would rather not understand than have the false assumption that I do.

  2. Not really Eaze. THC and CBD dominate the psychoactive compounds in cannabis and it’s reasonable to consider them “primary” in that sense. It’s especially important given the almost complimentary role they both play.

    That said though, you are right to point out there are other active ingredients, quite a lot of them and they all play a role in making cannabis what it is – a very subtly varied substance, far more than a simple cocktail of two chemicals. Cannabis should be regarded in the same way as fine wines or real beers are, instead prohibition has given us “solid” or “green”.

  3. Completely agree with you on the second paragraph but I have to still disagree with the article for claiming that there are ‘two major active components’ in cannabis.

    What about THCV, that is psychoactive and also regulates the effects of THC (delta 9) similar to CBD?

    Once we map out every cannabanoid and are able to define all of the different types of interactions between them, then we may be in a position to debate the ‘primary’ components of cannabis. But until then, its just going to be a constant increasing number.

    First it was 1 with THC. Now you claim it be 2 with THC and CBD. Maybe when THCV gets some coverage, someone else will claim there are 3 ‘primary’ components and so on.

    I’m not sayin that THC and CDB are not major components of cannabis, I’m just saying that they arn’t the only major components and by the time all the research is done, it may turn out that every cannabanoid is a major component, which is what I suspect will be the case.

    I would like to add that I agree with the conclusion of the article that the law has only encouraged the underground market of stronger strains that do not take into account the safety or well being of users like a regulated system could as can be shown with the change in ratios of THC and CBD over the years and I’m sure this could be demonstrated even stronger if all cannabanoid ratios had been taken into account.

    Also, I have re-read my first comment and would like to withdraw it. It was wrong of me to dismiss your article by calling you narrow minded especially considering all of the work that you put in for the community. Sorry about that.

  4. It seems that the real distiction we are making here is between holistic approaches which would accept cannabis as a whole herbal substance that requires an understanding of the mind-body continuum for its effects to be fathomed, and scientific reductionism through which such complex processes are incomprehensible. Science uses reductionism in the search for a single causal component whereas in nature there are an infinite number of causes for any given effect.

    This is why medicinal drugs have to be isolated compounds for the scientific approach to have any meaning – and even then the reductionism leads to synthetic compounds which bear little relation to the whole mind-body effects that natural herbal compounds provide. In addition, any substance has effects on an organism/person alongisde the person’s current states – this is why placebo works and yet is not recognised as a separate phenomenon in holism. Holism is not necessarily anti-science. Holism can be empirical and even qualitative at the same time (multivariate statistics can uncover many levels of interaction within a whole process) but holism is not the point of any research.

    We live in a reductionist paradigm/culture that believes in only one effect per cause per effect because the linear can be controlled. Of course Governments are never going to shed the control approach of scientific reductionism for the new agey approach of herbalism. They don’t have the language or attitude for it.

  5. Well put Sap! I 2nd that comment!

    But is all this research actually new anyway?
    Didn’t the US government experiment with engineering various strains during the Vietnam War which they tested on veterans. Strains closely linked to today’s ‘MK’ strains?

    My concern is if ‘they’ already knew about the paranoia vs relaxation effects then possibly the situation with prohibition could be engineered also to create a more controlled paranoid cannabis society. Thus demonising the drug and its users further to allow more prohibition and criminalization of average people for this prison society thats upon us.
    Just an obvious conclusion given the trend.

  6. Agreed with Sap and dr.stranger.

    Even though it isn’t currently possible to label a mere two cannabinoids as the “prime factors” in the effects of cannabis, at least this study into the opposing nature of THC/CBD is a start, and it’s a good start. It begins to show right from the word go that the nature of the effects of cannabis, in positive/negative terms, stem from the chemical balance or imbalance in the plant’s make-up.

    The thought has also crossed my mind that the Government has allowed this chemical imbalance in cannabis to take place in order to increase it’s negative effects so they can use this as an excuse for yet more prohibition of the drug. As long as they can prove that it’s dangerous, they can criminalise it with a majority backing.

    But the way I see it, once this research into the opposing effects of different parts of the chemical make-up of the plant becomes widely accepted, the Government will have no choice but to admit that cannabis can be legalised and used perfectly safely. If they continue to use prohibition and misinformation even after this information becomes widely known then it will only serve to expose them for the liars they are.

  7. Ignorance & the law are the problem.Ratio of THC to CBD is significant.Also abuse of any drug is harmful.Natural,balanced,cannabis has many benefits (MS,Arthritis,etc.)& is far better as a drug of choice than alcohol.Much violence is alcohol related-cannabis users do not react in this way.The most dangerous thing about cannabis is the present laws.Also,”Skunk” should not be used by kids.Too much THC without the balancw of CBD.

  8. Hi – do you believe there is more balance between the THC and CBD in hemp (for the production of medicinal hemp oil from the leaves and buds). The oil to be ingested or used topically as an ointment. Would hemp be the more effective medicinal route to follow or would marijuana leaves and buds yield a more effective medicinal oil.

    Would appreciate your input.

  9. Regarding “potency”: the percentage of THC refers to % of THC in herbal cannabis that is the plant material smoked ant NOT the “oil”. For example, if you have 1 gram cannabis with 10% THC in it you smoke 100 mg THC of which 10-40 milligram gets into your body with the smoke. A few milligrams are enough to notice the effect. We do not know how much CBD (or THCV, for that matter) is needed to counteract most of the harmful psychoactive effects so one should not compare milligrams to milligrams.

    Anyway, it is a complex question but one thing is clear: skunk of today is not the marijuana of the late sixties.

  10. Chemist:

    Regarding “potency”: the percentage of THC refers to % of THC in herbal cannabis that is the plant material smoked ant NOT the “oil”.

    You can’t be serious! 10% of the herbal mass would be a huge amount of THC and the product itelf would hardly resemble plant material!

    No, the analysis of cannabis involves destroying the plant material, leaving only the oils.

    I take your point about not knowing how much CBD is needed to counterbalance the THC, except studies by GW pharms for development of Sativex ended up with a 50-50 balance.

    Anyway, it is a complex question but one thing is clear: skunk of today is not the marijuana of the late sixties.

    You obviously never tasted Thai weed, or any of the premium grades avaiable back then.

  11. Another component of a rolled cannabis cigarette that needs to be examined is tobacco. Nicotine has the opposite effect to cannabis on sensory gating, which is very important in respect to the links between cannabis and psychosis. Reduced sensory gating (a brain wave pattern measured by EEG) is associated with schizophrenia, and has been induced experimentally by smoking cannabis. Smoking improves sensory gating, so the mixing of tobacco with cannabis could well be counteracting the more psychologically worrying features of cannabis use.

  12. The skunk of today is not the skunk of the 1960s.

    Bad news, neither is your food supply. While weed may have become more potent, it is still mostly harmless when used appropriately. However, the food supply, especially in America, has changed far more radically than the Marijuana supply. And the food supply can greatly negatively impact us, diabetes, heart disease, removing the market from the farmer. So when people say things aren’t like they used to be, agree with them, then scare them for what they have let one legal thing become. We need pot, it’s far healthier than the booze corroding our livers, and the mass produced beef clogging our hearts.

  13. The article talks about strains with seemingly unbalanced THC/CBD ratios that have become popular as a result of prohibition, but it doesn’t give any example ratios for these ‘new’ strains. I know there are definitely strains out there like this, but are they really that common? Is that really the issue…and not just potency by volume? I’m not discounting the impact of the ratio on the ‘high’, but I’m not convinced the ‘potency’ issue isn’t more closely related to the prevalence of skilled growers who produce overall better quality plants.

  14. It’s been claimed in the media that so-called “skunk” contains virtually no CBD at all. The 2008 Home Office study found sample of “skunk” with very low CBD content, although I would agree the science of that study was weak to put it mildly.

  15. The ratio of CBD/THC is often stated by seed suppliers and it appears to me a large quantity is still listed as containing a fairly high ratio of CBD (often described as medical grade). However, perhaps the most popular strains are sadly lacking in CBD; but high CBD ratio cannabis is very common still and as strong (just in a different way). From my experience I would also say that very little has changed regarding powerfulness over the years (apart from a dip in quality in the late 90’s); powerful cannabis was very available before imports became restricted (around the time of the first Gulf war and the ‘terror’ resulting in Soapbar). The effect of cannabis products constantly changes depending on what appears to be a multitude of factors (I assume these factors alter its overall makeup, not just CBD/THC balance), including the altitude it’s grown at. Some of the most powerful I’ve known was grown outdoors at high altitude and even had a large quantity of seeds (probably the same strain had been grown for decades). The skunk argument is fabrication (as far as I am aware skunk was just a strain anyway, like northern lights, Orange Bud or Cheese; basically a mix of Sativas, Indicas and Ruderalis varieties), why don’t we use the term Sensimelia (without seeds) instead? Hashish should also be stronger than ‘skunk’ because its a concentrated form of cannabis unfortunatley British stuff is usually adulterated.
    Oh, and the ‘Buds’ of today are often the same as the ‘Buds’ of the sixties, they’re inter-breeding the same strains because they were the best.

  16. i’d just like to say, this forum is fantastic, the more people discuss truth the more it will have to be accepted. i agree with many angles and it is important to recognise all points agree in principal. i am very much on the same page as “sap” in that i view the topic within the all and therfore have an anti-linear perspective on all things. for example the paradigm we live in doesnt accept metaphysics despite using its base principles daily.

  17. This is an interesting read and a lot of people have some good points in the comments.

    I agree it is very difficult to believe that there are only 2 ‘primary’ active compounds of Cannabis; but none the less the fact that this study has shown how they counter each other should pave the way for further study into more compounds and their affects to the mix.

    It may indeed be that these higher ratio THC to CBD strains are more harmful with prolonged usage but I’m sure that if you ask any experienced Cannabis user you would find the ratio is what makes the high. Some users prefer a more CBD feel whereas others prefer that near all THC hit.

    I think that further research should be focusing on the on-going health impact that this ratio of THC/CBD has and what can be done to reverse these effects. Is it just me that thinks if Cannabis is naturally occurring on a plant then there’s almost certainly some other plant growing somewhere that will counter it?

    And as for the government, law and prohibition… Personally I have never believed what the government have told me in that regards and recently a lot of the UK’s drug advisory council even stepped down because they did not feel that they where working towards the good of the public health; rather simply furthering the prohibition laws.

    Unless we stand up and show our disgust at the way they are running things nothing will change. It’s all good and well to talk about it online and with our friends but there just doesn’t seem to be a massive group standing up to them and fighting for the rights of not just the users but the countries (and possibly world?) as a whole.

    Just my 2 cents of course 🙂

  18. ^^^are you kidding? How about the website you’re posting this comment on?

    It is, however, interesting what you mentioned about the negative effects of cannabis being countered by some other plant out there… My personal feelings are that as humans, we evolved with drugs, and many (if not most) of the negative effects on our health ’caused’ directly by these drugs are more importantly caused by a psychoactive plant like cannabis being used out of the context of the ecosystem in which we evolved, where there were likely other factors that counteracted or attenuated these negative effects. Specifically, the amounts of the various different substances (psychoactive and non-) that we now consume has been distorted from those of our natural environment.

    –I just find this an interesting parallel to how the distortion of the CBD:THC ratio seems to cause negative effects.

    This is slightly off topic, but, u know, for my own “research,” are there any simple/inexpensive ways to extract only THC or CBD from herbal weed, that one could do at home?

  19. Generally there is no commercially sold cannabis that is CBD rich. Of the types usually available, the greatest % I have seen was 2% with OG Kush but it was still very high in THC. Since then several strains such as Pineapple Thai in Calif are available with 5% CBD and about 10% THC.

    Everybody says Indica is rich in CBD, they are just guessing & passing on what they have heard. Only a few sites actually test the product before selling it.

  20. In 7 years growing i have found that length of flowering period has a direct effect on the ratio when in natural light. The later the harvest the greater the CBD, so artificial environments and “time=power=money” equations all equating to THC rich skunk rather than healthy highs.

  21. I agree with krispy.

    Rather than breeding the perfect ratio of THC/CBD in a strain of cannabis, wouldn’t it be much easier to grow ruderalis to mix with the current strains to give more CBD?

    Sativex gets its CBD from ruderalis, which is blended with THC from sativa plants.

    In the right proportions it could have the desired effects, at least until more acceptable medical strains are bred.

  22. Please don’t use the word skunk to describe all high THC strains… Skunk #1 is just one strain of many.
    Check out Cannatonic by Resin Seeds. It’s like 1:1 ratio thc/cbd. Oh and flowering for longer periods will not raise cbd levels they are almost entirely genetic. CBN is what forms from degraded THC. CBN is bad and makes you feel lethargic.

  23. Thank you Dre for bringing up this thread, I found it rewarding to reread Derek’s great article and the excellent comments. For some discussion on what to do about politicians whipping up hysteria about the THC/CBD ratio please check out the “Sticky” (sounds like trichomes don’t it) about Letter Writing, at the top of “Activism”.

    * * * *

    “… there are other active ingredients, quite a lot of them and they all play a role in making cannabis what it is – a very subtly varied substance, far more than a simple cocktail of two chemicals.” (– Derek’s answer to eaze, near top)

    I’ve thought, since obviously humans and cannabis have co-evolved to an outstanding degree (analogous to the Cat and Nepeta cataria alias Catnip), this rich universe of cannabinoids probably corresponds to a dramatic extent with the co-universe of human animal physiology with its spiritual (and yes moral/ethical) outgrowths.

    Maybe 1.8 thousand million years ago in Africa humans learned to control fire in order to cook (and lengthen safe storage time of) sudden catches of large herbivourous grassland animal meat which a tribe or family couldn’t eat up in a day or two. This doubtless spurred on the precipitous rise in human population compared with other species (7,000,000,000 of us, 20,000 orangutans).

    Eventually humans, starting in Asia, discovered a weedy stalky plant which grew profusely, burned conveniently, etc.– and inhaled megatons of cookstove smoke from this particular plant (“by the sweat of thy brow, i.e. in mum’s kitchen, thou shalt eat bread”), changing human evolution in as yet hardly documented ways.

    This same plant was also good to use for roof thatching on their rickety houses, could be made into rope etc. In short order humans spread this useful species around the planet wherever they lived.

    As they dragged these plants to their houses little seeds fell off, and some got into dungpiles the humans had built up near their houses, and from feeding on human and domestic animal dung these plants co-evolved with human genetics, human psychology etc. to a remarkable degree, growing to be a kind of vegetative mirror of human character, creatively translated over from the animal republic. So for sure by the time of George Washington (grew hemp in Virginia), Gautier, Baudelaire et al. there already were THC, CBD etc. in abundance if maybe not like today.

    (Excerpt from article in preparation to be submitted to Wikipedia and other websites; please steal, copy, edit, enlarge, publish to taste)

    * * * *

    Dre: please furnish some more info about CBN, product of degraded THC, and what experts think should be done to minimise the degrading. I wonder if vapourising rather than hot burning overdose joints makes a difference.

  24. me personally from my experiance over the years iv found that cannabiss can cause a problem or stop a problem from occuring. governments like to say that skunk causes sycosis and many different types of mental health problems but what they dont tell you is that the subjected person who has these problems had underlaying issues way before they took cannabiss. cannabiss is just a scape goat.. like if a person murders some one or comints a serius crime and he smokes cannabis the police will automaticly say cannabiss was the cause of this when really they dont tell the true fact that social services or the individuals parents failed to provide them with a stable up bringing there for creating a problem….. we are all individuals and evry substance out there will have a diferent effect on evry different person

  25. Cannabis is not a scape goat the harms and benifits to mental health are very real, high THC can damage the brains ability to produce AEA its own version of THC which is responcable for building connections within the brain.

  26. Do you have a reference for the claim that THC damages the production of AEA? I haven’t found one from a quick search and haven’t heard this claim before. Indeed I am not aware of any evidence of brain damage from cannabis use.

  27. Derek im working backwards on this issue of mental health as its cannabis and its compounds that help me stay sane and live an almost ordinary life 20 years of pharma just made a mess of my ECSN, iam trying to prove that its good for mental health especially in adults whose brain structure is settled, most drugs used in mental health MAKE CB receptors but do not make or regulate properly the compounds to fire the receptors. within this you also have double binding of CB receptors throughout other parts of the ECSN which cause infertility tinnitus and a myriad of other unwanted cellular bindings.

    I don’t say something unless there is actual solid evidence been at this far to long to just blow of random comments and nonsense.

    My own Son who has inherited my bad genes also suffers the same mental health problems. takes a similar class of antidepressant and uses cannabis when he is really down.

    His children if male will also carry this problem. So i have many generations to fight for not just my own gratification.

  28. Just to make things clear as my original post seems to have caused confusion.
    THC has the ability to suppress AEA and thus control the building of the hippocampus in young people which in turn may lead to accelerated mental health issues during and shortly after puberty.

    Not actual Brain damage.

  29. Not having thoroughly read the document linked by Ellis, I have at least noted the paired concepts Endocannabinoid and Phytocannabinoid which correspond to the hypothesis in my Dec. 29 posting above. Meanwhile I have worked on the Wikiversity: Ethnobotany article which sets out a narrative purporting to explain the rise of a genetic Partnership between H. sapiens and C. sativa resulting in the elaborations observed in the aapsj study. Sorry, nothing yet on the cat and the catnip.

  30. At least 85 cannabinoids have been isolated from the cannabis plant.
    Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) and cannabinol (CBN) are the most prevalent natural cannabinoids and have received the most study. Other common cannabinoids are listed below:
    CBG Cannabigerol
    CBC Cannabichromene
    CBL Cannabicyclol
    CBV Cannabivarin
    THCV Tetrahydrocannabivarin
    CBDV Cannabidivarin
    CBCV Cannabichromevarin
    CBGV Cannabigerovarin
    CBGM Cannabigerol Monoethyl Ether
    source ” wikipedia ”

    well i have been smoking weed since about 1990
    and i can honestly say that the second i stopped getting good hash morrocan and squashey black and started getting skunk i noticed that it was indeed strong but something was missing ,this is getting worst every year because instead of pot smoking gardeners we now have greedy gangsters doing grows and they dont give a shit if your brain goes skitzo because they harvest on week 6 instead of week 8 or 9 or even 10 ,And one in my opinion the people to blame are the seed sellers , with there flowering times 6-7 weeks lol should say as long as it takes ,
    I hope that people who grow weed realise just to give it even 1 extra week they will benefit from bigger yields also and people will be a lot happier

Comments are closed.