SweetSue's Cannabis Oil Study Hall

[SweetSue]

Suppositories aren’t far behind

• SweetSue
• Feb 14, 2020

First cycle was 8 grams of Daddy’s Lil’ Devil (DDA x GDP) in about 118 ml of coconut oil. The second cycle was 8 grams of DDA added to the strained first cycle. LSL added after the second strain.

Suppositories in the works

• SweetSue
• Feb 14, 2020

I’m figuring the suppositories will be just over 30 mg apiece. That’s triple what the last batch was, and closer to what I was planning.

Let’s set a spell first

• SweetSue
• Feb 14, 2020

I’ll take it through a few solid/liquid cycles today to stir that lecithin in better.

Next batch I’ll make the oil ahead of time and let it sit unstrained until I need it, see if I can make it Rocket Fuel potential.

My experience with Rocket Fuel Brownies is they knock me on my butt when I have one after 5 PM. A couple times there one sent me to bed before 9 PM, not the norm for me at all. They’ve been widely accepted among friends who tried them.

I have so many things going on at once now It’d be easy to lose focus. Lol! Today I took a dose of Dust after having a small meal, to gauge the difference in onset with food in the stomach, then I strained this oil and licked my fingers without thinking about it.

I’m just about to start soaring.

 

[SweetSue]

Strainprint has a pdf report on cannabis and polypharmacy that’s incredibly insightful. Highly recommended reading.

I‘m getting ready to start an article on cannabis and pain, and this couldn’t have shown up in a more timely manner. Cajun once jumped my ass back at the beginning, coming in all hard and suspicious, “Why this passion Susan? Why now?”

Want to know what drives me to get it right? This:

My motivation

• SweetSue
• Feb 19, 2020

Isn’t that a big part of why we’re all here?

 

[gr865]

Hey Sue, just updated the journal, which is in my sig.
Stop by for a gander at these ladies.
I don't know if I will ever catch up on this journal, not half way yet.

 

[SweetSue]

Hey Sue, just updated the journal, which is in my sig.
Stop by for a gander at these ladies.
I don't know if I will ever catch up on this journal, not half way yet.

I’ll do my best to get there later today gr. I’m on a quest to clear as much data from my phone into Class Notes as possible so I can upgrade to a newer phone. I have some momentum going now that I want to keep going.

This isn’t the kind of journal you catch up on. Lol! This is a reference work in progress, and as such it can get pretty deep. That’s why we suggest you come to the current page and ask questions. Someone can usually find it in all the pages.

It defies organization, at least up to now it has. I started once, but we loaded in the new platform and lost all the links. It kinda took the wind out of my sails.

Why we keep going.....

Why we do what we do.

• SweetSue
• Feb 20, 2020

 

[kelticBlue]

I remember with my cat. I didnt want to say a word but wifey piped up we were using cbd on food. the Vet was not thrilled and worried about counter indications and all that. However when he was off the oil he had an seizure, then back on it no seizure. All things in all good time.

 

[SweetSue]

Cannabis Suppositories: A SweetSue Picture Tutorial

Help me spread the word please. Thanks.

I think I’ve earned a righteous buzz.

 

[SweetSue]

I’m trying to keep from spreading the links too widely on this site, but if you follow the link to SweetSue’s Threads in my signature you’ll find a complete list of the blogs I’ve done for the dispensary.

They just posted Part 2 of the Terpenes pieces, and I’d like to hear some feedback. The information as printed is exclusive to the media company I sold it to, so I’ll be putting something different together for 420 Magazine, and I’d like to know if there’s anything else you’d appreciate seeing included when I get to that part of the project.

 

[Amy Gardner]

Hey SUe and all. I’ve been a bit absent in here but am dropping in today to share something special.

This should be a real confidence booster for all of us who are sharing our oil making methods and uses here.

In the light of the posts up above where there are warnings about the risk of relying on advice in the general commmunity or online, this should also be a comfort to newcomers and passers by who come here from outside the forums to know that there is a lot of care and solid research and knowledge and experience in ths thread and the people here will steer you right!

The message comes from someone involved in cannabis at the grass roots level here (advocacy, activism, education), with access to many products, commercial and otherwise. This person suffers some ass-kicking fibromyalgia - I shared with them some of my Topical oil (made for pain relief about 3:1 THC:CBD), some THC dosing oil (made from Bubba Hash) and some CBD dosing oil (made from Candida CD-1). The oils were made with oven decarb’, MB2 for the Topical and the CBD oil and oven infusion for the Bubba Hash oil.

I am so grateful to this place and all of you here and to @SweetSue @InTheShed and @Oldbear especially for being alongside me so supportively a few years ago when I was getting started. That message is for all of you and everyone else in this thread who is part of our big collective oil making brain

 

[SweetSue]

What we’ve suspected turns out to be true. CBD has an element of euphoria, and taken in small doses next to THC will potentiate the euphoria of THC.

CBD appears to temper euphoria only in high doses, and high doses of CBD can cause gastric and emotional distress.

The suggestion to balance CBD and THC to temper euphoria needs some refining.


Source

Original Paper Published: 19 January 2019

A randomised controlled trial of vaporised Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol alone and in combination in frequent and infrequent cannabis users: acute intoxication effects


Nadia Solowij, Samantha Broyd, Rodney Croft

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, volume 269, pages 17- 35(2019)

Abstract

Access to cannabis and cannabinoid products is increasing worldwide for recreational and medicinal use. Two primary compounds within cannabis plant matter, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), are both psychoactive, but only THC is considered intoxicating. There is significant interest in potential therapeutic properties of these cannabinoids and of CBD in particular.

Some research has suggested that CBD may ameliorate adverse effects of THC, but this may be dose dependent as other evidence suggests possible potentiating effects of THC by low doses of CBD. We conducted a randomised placebo controlled trial to examine the acute effects of these compounds alone and in combination when administered by vaporisation to frequent and infrequent cannabis users. Participants (n = 36; 31 male) completed 5 drug conditions spaced one week apart, with the following planned contrasts: placebo vs CBD alone (400 mg); THC alone (8 mg) vs THC combined with low (4 mg) or high (400 mg) doses of CBD. Objective (blind observer ratings) and subjective (self-rated) measures of intoxication were the primary outcomes, with additional indices of intoxication examined. CBD showed some intoxicating properties relative to placebo. Low doses of CBD when combined with THC enhanced, while high doses of CBD reduced the intoxicating effects of THC. The enhancement of intoxication by low-dose CBD was particularly prominent in infrequent cannabis users and was consistent across objective and subjective measures. Most effects were significant at p < .0001.

These findings are important to consider in terms of recommended proportions of THC and CBD in cannabis plant matter whether used medicinally or recreationally and have implications for novice or less experienced cannabis users.


View media item 1757266

Via the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience.

Man! Could we use some decent trials.

 

[Chris Scorpio]

Be awhile till we get true testing

And even then, if big pharma does it, how much is believable

 

[SweetSue]

Be awhile till we get true testing

And even then, if big pharma does it, how much is believable

I sometimes think we’re the cutting edge, and quite frankly, that thrills and terrifies me at the same time.

 

[SweetSue]

View media item 1757266
So......

• Taking a small dose of CBD (8 mg THC to 4mg CBD, a 2:1 THC:CBD) had essentially the same results as no CBD, with a slightly higher lift to euphoria
• Taking a 1:33 ratio THC:CBD (12 mg THC/400 mg CBD) did slow down euphoria, significantly in the first hour, but then it crept up to close to what THC alone does
• Taking CBD alone causes a general lift to the psyche that looks like about half what THC pulls off.

See? All this is about how high you get, and that’s not what concerns us as medicine. We want to know how much more effective it can be therapeutically beyond euphoria.

Like..... If we take CBD an hour earlier does it really have an appreciable enough difference in bioavailability that it justifies loading up the patient with more doses?

 

[Alafornia]

It may offer clues as to the therapeutic effects, but I notice at the end of the timeline is a mark for "recovery".

 

[Amy Gardner]

Be awhile till we get true testing

And even then, if big pharma does it, how much is believable

This ^^^

I’m quite comforatble working it at the human level with whole plant medicine (not isolates or commercial products) and actual people living their day to day lives (not rodents or test subjects) and our own clinical observation and experimentation.

It’s such a personal medicine that studies can only really show us possible generalisations that may or may not be useful to any particular person.

ANd the subjective intoxication is very subjective. CBD effects might feel like intoxication to one person and not to the other. It could be the same sensation, just experienced differently.

To me the modern structures of science do not suit cannabis at all. All science wants to do it cut up into smaller and smaller components. I know there’s a wealth there and science will continue to tap it and creat amazing nano-medicine no doubt but I often question how much that helps thos of us just working with the plant - apart from occasionally giving us confidence that something we already suspected is true.

That graph just illustrates to me the potential biphasic nature of CBD.

None of that surprises me and doesn’t feel like a departure from what we already knew. Cannabis is biphasic so of course it dose dependency is a tricky beast.

The incredible differences in how cannabis affects different people makes studies like this seem almost useless to me. Not useless per se, its really interesting but I don't think science can draw generalisations out, the way it always wants to, and have them be particularly useful.

Even tho those THC + low dose CBD showed high high, i’d be curious to know if was less paranoid, less edgy and generally smoother. The test paramters are inevitably missing the nuances of the experience.

Rambling... I’m sure some of it made sense

 

[Alafornia]

To be taken seriously none of us can say that science doesn't matter. It does. That said, we need better science. We need science that tests pertinent theories in relation to the way that people actually use it, not the way scientists think they should or think they do or that makes for more easy experimentation for the scientists.

Now, scientists do need to do other studies - don't get me wrong, but people use this plant in myriad ways. Route and dose are individualized. Strain and therefore cannabinoid profiles are individualized. This makes a huge difference for those using it in whether it does what they need/want or not.

Bottom line: We need more science and better science, not less, and the science must reflect the ways people actually use cannabis. The science must move further away from "abuse" and more toward real world usage.

 

[Amy Gardner]

I don’t think I said that science doesnt matter I think modern science is far too compartmentalised and could do with a good dose of the times when philosophy and science were more symbiotically interlinked in practice and in thought.

I see modern medical science trying to push cannabis into the structures and shapes that suit the current accepted testing and trialling methods and i think cannabis as we use it day to day will always resist this.

I’m a philosopher and I love science. And I was “shootin’ the breeze” a bit.

 

[Alafornia]

I don’t think I said that science doesnt matter I think modern science is far too compartmentalised and could do with a good dose of the times when philosophy and science were more symbiotically interlinked in practice and in thought.

I see modern medical science trying to push cannabis into the structures and shapes that suit the current accepted testing and trialling methods and i think cannabis as we use it day to day will always resist this.

I’m a philosopher and I love science. And I was “shootin’ the breeze” a bit.

I stand corrected. Thank you. We both agree the science needs to evolve.

 

[Amy Gardner]

And then there’s the problems with language.
(Quote for the study text)

Some research has suggested that CBD may ameliorate adverse effects of THC,

My study has taught me that the research suggests CBD can modulate the psychoactive effects of THC.

That is a very differnt statement to the one made in the study, which I quoted..

“Ameliorate” suggests something much more specific than “modulate”. ”Adverse” imports a judgement right off the bat that what’s being talked about is not a desired effect (So judgement and assumption).

Then the study goes on to say, wow it didn’t always make people less high. So they’re connecting highness with the “adverse”.

The material I have read about this tell me that CBD can help to ease paranoia, and edginess, the possible adverse effects that can come alongside the highness... not the highness itself necessarily. So you see, it‘s all about how the original claim is being interpreted and represented.

So yes - as you say Ala - the parameter of the studies can only address simple specifics and that doesn’t reflect the day to day use for many people.

I see language full of judgement and assumption and gentle manipulation of the information like that right at the beginning and I’m already losing interest...

 

[Alafornia]

And then there’s the problems with language.
(Quote for the study text)


My study has taught me that the research suggests CBD can modulate the psychoactive effects of THC.

That is a very differnt statement to the one made in the study, which I quoted..

“Ameliorate” suggests something much more specific than “modulate”. ”Adverse” imports a judgement right off the bat that what’s being talked about is not a desired effect (So judgement and assumption).

Then the study goes on to say, wow it didn’t always make people less high. So they’re connecting highness with the “adverse”.

The material I have read about this tell me that CBD can help to ease paranoia, and edginess, the possible adverse effects that can come alongside the hugh ness... not the highness itself. So you see, it‘s all about how the original claim is being interpreted and represented.

So yes - as you say Ala - the parameter of the studies can only address simple specifics and that doesn’t reflect the day to day use for many people.

I see language full of judgement and assumption and gentle manipulation of the information like that right at the beginning and I’m already losing interest...

I agree completely. I pointed out a problem with the language above (recovery - recovery from what? Being high? Do we study how opioids cause a high/euphoria? probably, but it is more accepted as a "side effect".)

The science and the language of the science has to evolve. The judgment simply has to go.

 

[Amy Gardner]

Its also a tendency to want to grab a hold of meaning. We see a study that suggests something adn people are qiuoc to go - “hey! This does that!”. We want ot go this is it! This is something!

I think we can be much more circumspect - we know that CBD changes the shape of the receptor that THC binds to, science tells us that and that is fantastic. We know clinically that people have less undesirable elements to their THC experiences when CBD is used in concert, including that someone who feels they have had too much can take a little CBD and find some ease from that. There are a whole lot of subtleties there that studies like this are bound to miss and nothing in it is as clear as ”CBD will make someone less stoned from THC”. CBD modulates and while studies like this can show us a general trend, that’s about as good as it gets. I’m fine w that too, at this stage, becasue it’s always about the individual needs and responses anyway.

So the data gained by That study is actually very useful in the sense that it shows something about the subtleties, something that is being missed by the “CBD lessens highness” assumption. It shows that a lot more than that is giong on. It’s the discussion in the paper (and many others) that I dont like, because it’s departure point is nebulous to me. I like the data

pointed out a problem with the language above (recovery - recovery from what? Being high? Do we study how opioids cause a high/euphoria? probably, but it is more accepted as a "side effect".)

I wondered i that’s what you meant. Yes! Exactly