Hacker News Reader

Comment by tedivm | Hacker News Reader

It's important to note that the chemicals they tested with were the cannabinoid acids (CBDA, THCA). When smoking or cooking those acids are converted via decarboxylation. These final chemicals were not part of this study.

In other words, this study only tested people eating raw uncooked cannabis. It does not tell you much about whether any benefits will be provided to your average smoker.

View on HN

I am explicitly not recommending that anybody try cannabis for COVID although I don't think it will place you at significantly greater risk (I doubt there is enough high quality evidence to show that cannabis consumers are at high risk of respiratory problems associated with covid).

That said, a standard e-nail vaping rig comes with a temperature controller that is very accurate and precise (degree resolution, 10 degree accuracy according to my tests). In pratice you could get high purity THCA (99.9% THCA), set your vape slightly below 220F, and inhale the generated steam.

I have a background in biochemistry and did a fair amount of research into cannabis chemistry and it's pretty amazing how underutilized cannabinoids are.

I picked up a cannabis habit in various forms lately, on a daily basis. It has been wild to feel my body react in positive ways. Today I woke up without significant gut discomfort, which is the first time in nearly a decade. Happened immediately after switching from edibles to smoking (just as a temporary experiment).

The relationship between the endogenous cannabinoid system and the gut is extremely deep and complex. Note that some number of heavy users actually experience problems (hormesis syndrome), so if you had gut discomfort from eating, that could possibly be related.

For me, eating just puts me to sleep. Like, 12 hour nap with crazy dreams. Not what I want.

The next experiment might be from smoking to vaping it. If the benefit is lost, there may be some other active element that arises from its combustion; if not then it might be safer since vaping it would not create any tar.

Note that smoking cannabis does not have the same cancer health problems as tobacco, tar is not really the issue here. In fact cannabis has a very slight but detectable protective effect for nearly all cancers. Generally, most of the problems with smoking cannabis involve heat-induced damage to the lungs, not the same things that make tobacco smoke dangerous.

You just described my exact plan. I’m hesitant even to vape due to health effects but for now I’m just investigating.

Tinctures are an option too. And a lot of edibles like chocolates and gummies wouldn't hit decarboxylation temp.

https://wayofleaf.com/education/decarboxylation

As your article mentions, decarboxylation is a required step for cannabis extracts to have any psychoactive effects. So, presumably commercially marketed edibles are decarboxylated.

I've always been a little fuzzy on this and would love for someone else to chime in.

It's my understanding that raw marijuana contains both psychoactive cannabinoids as well as precursors which require decarboxylation.

If that's the case, I am not sure that decarboxylation is _required_ - however it is recommended as it increases the _amount_ of bioavailable cannabinoids (i.e. best bang for your buck.)

It's unlikely for cannabinoids other than THC to bind to the CB1 receptor strong enough to cause the psychoactive effect.

Only THC binds very well to the CB1 receptor. THCA does not bind well to either receptor.

Cannabinoids that bind to CB2 receptors in the immune and gastrointestinal systems affect inflammatory and immune responses.

I was commenting on possible delivery mechanisms for the compounds described in the study, CBDA and CBGA. Smoking or eating "cooked" edibles isn't going to get enough of those compounds into the bloodstream.

Edit: added compound names

Something that was confusing to me while reading the paper was that there were other compounds they talked about having high potential, but didn't actually test, such as THC-A. Am I misunderstanding this part of the paper?

the study did not involve testing on humans, and it even did not involve testing on rats (which imo would not have worked anyway), it is cell assays and binding constants only

Reply on news.ycombinator.com