SamuiGrower

Not sure if external links are allowed: https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/cannabis-farms-infectious-pathogen-18115205.php

Didn’t know that was an actual thing! Must have been invented by a mouth breather.????

It’s a concerning issue in the states for sure and all commercial grow ops are becoming hyper vigilant over it. it’s a plant specific, RNA HLVd (Hop Latent Viroid) pathogen affecting outdoor crops (for the moment). It is particularly insidious because it lies dormant until there is a secondary stress event that weakens the plant, I.e High temp/low humidity (high VPD) or insect predation. It presents (visually) as a nutrient deficiency: stunted growth, low mass, chlorotic leaves, brittle stems. It is believed to be spread by aphids and has been affecting many grows. There is little to be done other than to use ‘best practices’ with crop cleanliness and sanitation (build it out). Do NOT bring outdoor plants indoors if you are doing a CEA grow or attempt to clone and propagate indoors. This is not the first time or the only virus that is concerning or has wreaked havoc on cannabis. Mosaic virus (2 types), D. Dipsaci, pseudomonas cannabina, xanthomonas and CCV (cannabis cryptic virus are a handful of other, hard to control cannabis pathogens to deal with. Stoner is correct in the possibility (likelihood) of bringing it over and none of us should be surprised if/when it happens. Introducing plant pathogens across borders is nothing new. Phylloxera (though not a virus) wiped out most of the wine grapes around the world in the later part of the 19th century and let’s not forget the potato famine in the mid 19th century. Some cheap FYI advice for all the growers germinating “imported” seeds: sanitize your seeds with a 1% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solution.. 1 part hydrogen peroxide to 2 parts water. Soak for 12 hours prior to germination. This preventative technique will also improve germination rate by over 50% as well as knocking down bacteria, virus, mold, spores, etc. The seeds in my op have a phytosantiary inspection, that were required by the Thai FDA.

Is there any science behind grinding weed? Funny you should ask? Yes. All the yummy organoleptic properties (taste, aroma, smells and flavors) are in the trichomes. The rest, vegetal matter, carbs, lignin and cellulose. Weed is more than THC. Flavones, terpenes, polyphenols and other cannabinoids will be delivered more uniformly in every hit with grinding and deliver a fuller ‘experience’. Uniform combustion and delivery assures a faster onset through the blood-brain barrier. To grind or not to grind? That is the question. The answer: grind. (IMHO, of course! ????)

Compounded, even more so, by cannabis being a hyperaccumulator plant, up-taking all heavy metals and toxins from the soil (or substrate). It is this very reason that cannabis (hemp) was a soil mitigation crop for treating contaminated soils. This all translates to: glyphosate’s sprayed ‘around’ cannabis will contaminate soils for 6 months, having low mobility, will be taken up by hyperaccumulators like cannabis for all to enjoy in every puff. Indoor cultivation is not subjected to glyphosates - fortunately.

Not exactly. Some background: Glyphosates are a non-discriminate herbicide that will kill anything (mostly weeds and grasses) in its path. While not being directly sprayed on cannabis, you can believe it is sprayed around furrows and ridges around cannabis. There use on GMO crops only is not correct. To be clear, glyphosates will likely remain the most widely applied pesticide globally, for years to come. It is used and packaged in many different forms and applied across diverse sectors: aquaculture, forestry, major food crops like corn, canola, wheat and most grains, beans, sugar cane and soybeans (where it is predominantly used). 43 of 45 oat based products (Quaker oats oatmeal) tested positive for glyphosates. Monsanto (they developed glyphosates in 1974), understanding that it binds to three specific enzymes in plants, genetically modified seed stock to “switch off” gene expression in these enzymes. GMO seed stock are sold to farmers along with glyphosates. It acts as “lock and key”, killing everything but the crop produced from the seeds. So, yes, cannabis not being a GMO (yet highly hybridized), is NOT immune to glyphosates but yet is/may be used by those farming it. Glyphosates have been widely used in Thailand for decades. You don’t get to be the 4th largest user in the world of pesticides on food crops and escape the use of glyphosates. To say they are never used on cannabis would be misinformation. Palm oil, that has taken over the use of coconut oil (because it’s cheaper to produce on many different models), has become a prime crop for the use of glyphosates. Chlorpyrifos and Paraquat have been banned in Thailand. Paraquat used to be the number one pesticide used in cannabis cultivation, around the world. In 2019 Thailand began steps to officially ban glyphosate’s. Bayer chemicals (Germany) that acquired Monsanto, went on an active campaign, with the help of the EPA and FDA (USA), to influence Thailand in reversing this ban. It remains in use and the ongoing story is extremely controversial. The WHO (World Health Organization) has classified Glyphosates as likely carcinogenic. There is enormous politicized controversy, not only around the outsized influence over Thailand by the USA, in its use of glyphosates, but by medical studies of glyphosates being co-opted by BIG companies like Bayer, with the help of federal agencies. BIG companies=BIG $. This, of course, is at the expense of world health. A simple internet search on Glyphosates and human health will yield the following (in many different forms): (This is from the NPIC, National Pesticide Information Center) What happens to glyphosate when it enters the body? In humans, glyphosate does not easily pass through the skin. Glyphosate that is absorbed or ingested will pass through the body relatively quickly. The vast majority of glyphosate leaves the body in urine and feces without being changed into another chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency says: No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate Anyone buying this? Raise your hand. The controversy continues in masking the hazards and dangers of glyphosates by lobbyists and special interest groups in medical studies around the world. Glyphosates are truly insidious and bind tightly to soils and have a half-life of about 6 months. There is strong evidence that they are: Carcinogenic (liver and kidney) Endocrine disrupters Reproductive ailments, maladies and developmental issues Cause risks in pregnancies and breast milk inflammatory disorders Metabolic disorders Disrupt mitochondrial function The only safeguard in limiting exposure to glyphosates is in buying “certified organic”. The term “organic”, in and of itself is controversial but guarantees you glyphosates and an infinite list of other pesticides, we’re NOT used in the farming practices of what you are consuming.

A couple of points I’ve made before but are relevant to the dialogue: That list, the one everybody goes by, are not the official laws but the official stance. “No import, only seeds” is the stance not the law. Heard it, argued over it a million times. The following (below), opened the floodgates in Thailand, overnight, and were NEVER rescinded. They were designed to fill the nascent market but had no regulatory body of enforcement. My company, prior to these laws, began the process over three years ago with medical CBD (grow, sales, processing, export). When the ‘edict’ of legalization came, we were immediately fast tracked. FYI: Hemp=weed (bud) duh On January 29, 2021, Thailand will begin processing applications for licenses to produce, import, export, distribute, and possess hemp (Cannabis sativa). The specific requirements for this significant step in Thailand’s ongoing development of a regulatory regime for hemp are contained in the Ministerial Regulation Re: Application and License for Production, Importation, Exportation, Selling or Possession of Hemp, which was published in the Government Gazette

Thailand is the fourth ranked pesticide consuming country, globally. Yes, any outdoor weed farming done here, especially at scale (like an actual business ????) - you can bet on it! Glyphosates are THE WORST!

That is correct information. I remember it vividly from the early to late 70’s. It was also cured like Malawi Cob as well if you were fortunate. Sometimes, it was coated in kief (never opium as some have suggested). And yes, it was mainly from Laos, some came out of Cambodia but it all passed through Thailand. As a result, this is why there is no PURE, true landrace Thai genetics (I see a huge contentious argument heading my way! ????). Yes, I know, there is always the Obi-Wan Thai grower that has the “real deal”….. I am familiar with SE Asian landrace phenos, That is what they should be called. The very nature of 60 years of outdoor growing will lead to genetic drift through pollination. If you experience seeds you know what I’m talking about……. So refreshing to have factual info coming out of dispensaries and seed banks. A rarity. Thank you.

24) Control unruly Farang tourist rigulation (sic). They come here and the next thing you know, we have Sex Tourism and now Cannabis Tourism. Let’s not blame cannabis or sex. Maybe medical sex should be legal but the “other” kind, not so much……….

I agree with thirsty21. All in favor of nice, dense, tasty nugs with that je nais se quois “Terpene Profile”, say aye! In the business back in the states, we had a regulatory body on both quality and pricing: Quality was strictly enforced by the consumer, a wide demographic of discerning smokers, who had several hundred dispensaries to chose from. If you missed the mark on quality, the cannabis fashionista would publicly crucify you on social media as well as any cannabis related network. They wanted and demanded the best. Here in Thailand, you are not the demographic. It’s the cannabis tourist. The market is a completely unregulated race-to-the-bottom. When one-off buyers will pay big baht by the gram and never return, why should they play to you, the “regular”? Go buy where you feel comfortable. Darwinism will triumph in the business and only successful business grow models will triumph. You will ultimately be left with “the Walmart”of weed and hopefully a cut above that. Imagine……lots of great LED lights and lots and lots of nimble fingers, hand trimming all those great nugs…….. Curious. You think a dispensary that professes to you, their knowledge of the genetics, cultivation techniques and terpene profiles of their flower, presents you a value added perspective and a better, more informed decision? I have this bridge you might be interested in…. Believing any information in regards to the flower you are considering buying is a complete fantasy, likely handed down by the seed bank the seeds came from. Here is how I quantify the difference in your bud pics. Good bud: tight, dense nugs, no leaf material, very tight trim. Bad Bud: leafy, airy, stemy, sloppy trimming, brown and OLD, degraded by humidity and light. Find a weed shop(s) that meet your criteria for the bud you like, or better, start a thread and datapoint all the great shops and share them with the expat peeps. They in turn, will share theirs and so on. Pricing. Capitalism is great and certainly promotes that Darwinism model. In Colorado, the CDR (Colorado Dept of Revenue) sets the pricing with a quarterly AMR (Average Market Rate). They use the data they collate from the seed-to-sale software, that every dispensary and grow op must use, and collate metrics. This is what happens in a regulated industry. The current AMR for 1 lb (454 grams) of retail flower is currently $645. That’s 49.00 baht a gram. In a fair, keystone retail business, the price would be 100 baht a gram. This somewhat correlates to the US$90.00 an ounce - out the door price that you see in Denver. Of course, the latest “Unicorn Poop” strain always sells for $260(ish). This is what regulates a fair market with balanced trade. Tourism and ‘whatever the market will bear’ pricing, dominates this market. If you have high standards, find your niche dealer and strike up a relationship for some dank cola bud. And, please, buy some weight. If you’re a gram buyer that likes to talk about what bothers you, I doubt you’ll get to the good stuff.

I was planning on posting this under its own tag/topic, but am opting to post it, this way, after reading the numerous postings on the relationship of cannabis to cancer or cannabis in relation to health, be it negative or positive. I have reviewed the posts on “Cannabis and cancer”, of which there are many and appear time-to-time. This is a reoccurring theme on this forum that presents itself in many different forms: Palliative care: for chemo symptoms, nausea, loss of appetite Alternative treatments: other than chemo or typical ontological protocols Vaping vs. smoking Cannabis cures cancer The responses/posts fall, overwhelmingly, into the following categories: Smoking/vaping cannabis cures cancer and is NOT carcinogenic Science denialism (complete with some ‘other’ left field cure) Google and YouTube myths See a trained MD/physician posts My take away: Science denial is pervasive, with some not willing to consider smoking cannabis (conventionally or vaping) as having known, scientifically proven, carcinogenic compounds. Some, double down and say, ‘science is often wrong, it’s semantics, “a game of words”, never been a known cancer case, depends what the definition of ‘is’ is, etc. A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. What-about-ism: YouTube says this, Google says that. There is a reason why academics, colleges and universities won’t (can’t) use general internet searches for citing anything: misinformation, disinformation, and just plain lies. Have a medical question? Look at CDC, NIH, FDA, AMA, News-Medical, ACS and a host of others. NOT YouTube or Google. The boundary between truth/fact/science and SEO positioning is very blurry and getting worse. If you have an anti-cancer ‘widget’ in the game, you can pay for search engine ranking. Think about that. We all love cannabis ????. At least, for those of us in this forum, of which I am one. Some refuse to accept that it is not a cure for all that ails you and can’t accept that Mary Jane can be bad in combustible form. Anything you smoke can/will be bad for you. Habitual smokers (of anything) have higher risks and occasional smokers, lower risks. Any MD will support this fact. And, yes, we all know the smoker of 50 years that’s healthy as an ox. This is evidence of nothing. A sample study of one, that wins no debate or settles any dispute. Just another ‘good genes’ anecdote. The truth: Smoking anything through conventional combustion has carcinogenic compounds. Eliminate the tar, residues and other nasties doesn’t make it safer it only minimizes the dose of carcinogenic compounds that are cumulative. Smoking or vaping cannabis has carcinogenic compounds as well, regardless of temperature or filtration (bubblers, bongs, etc.) In fact, smoking or vaporization of concentrated hydrocarbons (dabs in all its forms) has an increased set of risks outside the parameters of cigarette smoking. For palliative care: nausea or loss of appetite- smoke away. Whatever makes your quality of life better in the moment. More power to you. As a scientist, I was ‘chastised’ for posting, “smoking/vaping cannabis will NEVER be an accepted delivery system for cannabinoids as a medical treatment/protocol”. I stand by that statement, scientifically. Medically, cannabis will prove out to be effective in the treatment of many, many diseases - we should have no doubts. Cannabinoids will be separated into its fractions (CBD, THC and all its isomers, CBG, CBN, CBC and the like) and quantifiable doses with known efficacy will be administered through: ingestion, tinctures, sub-dermals, inhalers, oromucosal sprays, etc. There are already well known patented and multi-National cannabis pharmaceuticals that are making huge inroads in treatments. Sativex (and other Nabiximols), Nabilone, Dronabinol and Cesamet, to name a few. None are prescribed for cancer or tumors. There is a clinical trial, being conducted at present in the UK on cannabis and glioblastomas (brain tumors). The modality of dosing is NOT by smoking/vaping. Looking for a ‘carcinogen free’ way of using cannabis? Eat it. Edibles, medibles, tinctures, etc. In fact, ingestion is a good mode of dosing albeit ‘first pass metabolism’ through the liver, greatly diminishes the effective dose. In the case of THC, ingestion produces a much stronger psychoactive response as the liver converts the THC to a more powerful form (11-OH-THC). A better absorption, bypassing first-pass-metabolism, can be achieved by using MCT oil (medium chain triglycerides) as the carrier. If you have cancer, yes, you should first consult MD’s in the medical world that will inform you of known protocols, treatments and outcomes in the conventional treatments of known cancers. After you have been fully informed and you still wish to seek alternative treatments, do so, knowing your full array of options. Alternative treatments: RSO (Rick Simpson Oil) has a huge body of anecdotal evidence in the cure of cancer and tumors, so overwhelming, it can not be ignored. Yes, many of those testimonials are on YouTube and Forums alike as well as multiple websites. Other botanicals or cancer ‘cures’. Drill down and do your research. Many of these herbs/botanicals pose ‘other’ risks, especially to your endocrine system, CNS, GI system and enzyme synthesis. Many that I have researched, at minimum, lower blood pressure, affect blood clotting and lower blood glucose. They all ‘promise’ the same thing: positive lab studies (all in vivo of course) and the hope of a cure. The history of modern pharmacology originated through the use of botanics and pharmacokinetics show promise everyday in the use of natural plants. But please, exercise caution and first check with the FDA about any contraindications as to ingestion and use of anything. Remember, without human clinical trials, all claims remain unsubstantiated and purely anecdotal. I find it curious that studies that show ‘possible cancer curing’ phytochemicals and antioxidants from say, cruciferous vegetables, like Broccoli and cabbage, never lead to internet crazes that promote broccoli shakes that ‘cure’ cancer. Instead, it’s some leaf from an exotic fruit that is touted as the newest cure-all, usually replete with an infomercial, testimonial and advertisement for purchase. “Studies suggest that it could, might, may, possibly be effective……” Usually, if we are lucky enough that the medical profession has taken a remote interest in these botanicals, and yes, many show incredible anti-cancer effects (apoptosis), most of those studies are done on cells, ‘in vivo’, in lab Petri dishes that somehow, “jump the shark” and are then promoted on the net as a cure. It’s a huge leap! You should be aware there is an ample amount of medical quackery in the treatment of cancer by MD’s as well. These fringe doctors promote risky, expensive, unfounded and medically unrecognized treatments. Many hide behind their “fight” against the system (FDA, AMA, etc.) to distract from the controversy of their questionable treatments. Conclusions: Smoking as a modality of cannabinoid delivery as medicine: Unlikely/never. If you say, ‘…I smoke a few hits and it makes me sleep or it cures my insomnia’ and that’s proof of smoking as medicine. Or, it cures my anxiety or it gives me hunger……then you have discovered the narrow bandwidth to make your argument, BUT it is narrow at that. Cannabis WILL be an accepted medical treatment but not in the buds-to-bong approach. It will go through short-path fractional distillation or HPLC, and the slices of cannabinoids and isomers will be processed. Synthetic cannabinoids will predominate pharmacology and the medical world because of their metered, consistent and measurable quantification that evades naturally grown plant cannabinoids due to varying and unpredictable growing conditions. Keep it real and be informed. Try not to settle for the first ‘search’ that supports your theory, as much as you would like to believe it. Do a “360” approach and research as much as you can. Look at what you are researching from all angles and viewpoints. Truth/facts/science is not negotiable or relative based upon your perception or viewpoint. There is only one truth as inconvenient as it might be at times.

i should have been more accurate for you. no carcinogens linked to cancer. no proof cannabis use causes cancer. Uh, no, that’s incorrect or in your case, inaccurate. There are plenty of verifiable carcinogens in cannabis, I named a few above. The medical field is pretty much cut and dry with that. I read the article, it didn’t support your opinion. It said, “…..Cannabis smoke contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco smoke, including greater concentrations of certain aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene, prompting fears that chronic marijuana inhalation may be a risk factor for tobacco-use related cancers. ” it goes on to extol the benefits of all the cannabinoids that you get to enjoy in the same carcinogenic puff. See my drift? Look, I can do the work for you and report back and let you know the real deal (isn’t that what I just did? ????) or you can continue to say no, no, no, except for soursop which is a yes. (please hold me down ????‍????). Certainly not out to change your mind but there are some disciples of science out there to be real with.

No, there is no truth in it other than it ranks pretty high on Google SEO but I digress…. Unless you are getting data from the NIH (National Institute of Health) or other accredited medical, fact based, science site, I would research further. If you do, you will find that News-Medical, NIH, John’s Hopkins, Sloan Kettering say the exact opposite with some medical studies saying it is more detrimental than nicotine. I tend to trust the datapoints of all those oncology patients that went through protocols. I know what SAFE is but what is SAFER? As I’ve said before, ad nauseam, talk to MD’s, oncologists, pulmonologists - I have. None recommend inhaling anything. Hard stop. Any type of “dab” related distillate will prove out to be the most deleterious on the lungs. It’s all lipophilic, oily, sticky, resiny fluid that is deposited on the mucosa lining of your lungs. When you dabbers clean your rig, think of that “reclaim” on your lungs. Right, 1/1000th safer. ???? Best way to get those cannabinoids through the blood-brain barrier - I’ll give you that! Im in the choir boys, believe me….but I don’t delude myself and yes, I’m representative of most of you.

Yes, unfortunately so. ???? Substitute the word combustion for vaporization and we have the same outcome. Concentrated forms may not have vegetal matter or the same particulate impurities as flower but those concentrated hydrocarbons do pose a known risk. So unfortunate.

Not exactly…. Except for: benzoprene (benzopyrene), benzanthracene, carbon monoxide, nitrosamines, polycyclic oxidative hydrocarbons and 27 other known carcinogens. Science, so inconvenient at times…..

Data services offering Insights into the legal cannabis industry in Thailand is inherently flawed from the start, offering nothing more than what “WeedMaps or Leafly” offers in the USA: a map and menu of locations and offerings. The “data” is cripplingly limited, as it is an uneven playing field rife with “bad actors”, illegal imports and more than dubious product as is blatantly obvious by reading the cannabis related posts in this forum. How does one produce data or metrics to analyze when there is no type of regulation that tracks quantity and analysis of products sold? One does not need to look further than the USA to see what valid metrics looks like. Seed-to-sale software in every dispensary and grow across the US is regulated by both, cannabis enforcement regulators as well as a department of revenue (specific to each state, i.e MED (Marijuana Enforcement Division and CDR (Colorado Department of Revenue) in Colorado). There is almost no mechanism for cheating and many avenues to be fined and penalized. Infractions are published. The sole purpose of universal, non-resident software is COMPLIANCE. The type of data and metrics that are produced: Total sales by category of product, I.e. flower, edibles, etc. This metric is cross referenced amongst other grows and dispensaries to show demographic feasibility and economic balance. Total yield by seed/clone. Also cross referenced amongst other grows to show yield and grow metrics. Audit trail and consolidation of every plant, clone, seed and finished gram of flower so that ‘rogue’ flower does not infiltrate the market. Inspection reports: licenses, taxation, employee verification (badges) Certificates of Analysis of flower: microbial, pesticide and THC Consolidation of documents and product manifests. Local and state taxation and compliance reporting Product and regulatory labeling (To name just a few. Forgetting more than I remember ????) By consistent and universal data tracking, economics of the cannabis industry becomes clear; how much is sold and for how much? Non-compliant growers that fail inspections lose their license after repeated failures/fines. Grow and Dispensary licenses are separate businesses (you need to be integrated to make money but it’s not necessary). Products that enter a dispensary are audited in real time and are cross referenced against seed-to-sale metrics and quantities. Product is not ‘released’ without COA’s. A grow can’t have 500 clones appear one day without an audit trail, and if they do, they are destroyed. A rating system of flower is done by the social media consumer market. What we call cannabis fashionistas, who drive the market in relation to quality and variety. Without an iota of regulation in this nascent market, what good is a rating system? What are the standards? Who is doing the rating? As per the OP: “This means that almost all the data on our state of industry page is directly provided by the shops themselves, ensuring accuracy and up-to-date information that can be trusted by users.” The data is provided by the shops themselves? Ensuring accuracy? Wow, really? Instills no confidence in me, whatsoever. Read poster, Bamnutsak’s synopsis of Meeting minutes with the Department of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine Agenda for some real in-site: https://aseannow.com/topic/1293676-the-bad-actors-in-thailand%E2%80%99s-cannabis-industry/?do=findComment&comment=18069357 As most of us know, the legalization was not well thought out, rolled out way too soon, and woefully remiss in any type of regulation. I liken Thailand to the USA, 11 years ago: under regulation to over regulation to controlling licenses and production to the utter decline and non-profitability of small(er) players within the market. So, I commend the effort to provide data but make it meaningful, measurable data. A list of articles, a weed map, menus of offerings….it’s a beginning but somehow I can’t help thinking it will be an ad based revenue portal.

You’re correct but the limiting factor is not humidity it’s the light, surprisingly enough. Equatorial strains all share the same trait: long finishing/maturing. 16 weeks flowering is not unusual at all. The cumulative light for a crop to mature and finish is called DLI (daily light integral). This is the intensity (measured in umol/ppfd) multiplied by time (hours) by square meter (canopy). Cannabis is a high DLI crop, perhaps the highest known. Cannabis needs around 50 DLI. There are 4 months in Thailand where the DLI is 40-45, the other 8 months, well below that (30-35). Since DLI, in relation to crop finishing (outdoors) is cumulative, finishing takes ‘forever’. When talking landrace strains, long finishing time is in the genetic coding (DNA). To be clear, when talking “landrace”, we mean pure C. Sativa, not hybridized with C. Indica.

Terpenes or “Terps” as they are colloquially called amongst us, are all the rage, if not the craze, amongst the stoner, grower and medical user community. We love to throw the word around but most don’t really know: what they are, or what they do. Here’s the science of it. Or, at least enough of it as to not make you glaze over. What are Terpenes? They are medium chain (C10) hydrocarbons associated with many, many plants of which cannabis is just one. Citrus fruits, oily herbs/spices (thyme, sage, basil, rosemary, peppercorns, etc. are just a few examples of plants with terpenes. They are the main components of all essential oils. We are more familiar with them in our lives than we think. Camphene (camphor), Eucalyptol, Thymol, citronellol, pinene, etc. They are in mouthwash, tiger balm, insect spray, perfumes and food and beverages, to name just a few. They are responsible for the aromas and flavors (organoleptic properties) of cannabis. It’s their association with cannabis that the conversation becomes contentious. More on this below. They are produced in cannabis as a stress response to combat UV exposure (sunscreen), low humidity and insect/animal predation (herbivory). They are expressed and isolated in the trichomes of the plant. These are the sticky/resinous glands that look like tiny mushrooms (stalked capitate glandular trichomes). The modern practice in cannabis growing is to create controlled stress to increase terpene (and all secondary metabolites for that matter) production. Low humidity in the last few weeks of flowering (weeks 5-8) will increase trichome production as well as controlled drought stress and UV-B spectrum light (the science is still a bit unclear on this). Here’s where the controversy begins. The word “Terpenes” is thrown around in the recreational cannabis world as a selling point, to convey how great the flower smells and tastes. Fair enough. In the medical cannabis world, the word is used in regards to its medicinal qualities and is usually paired with the phrase “Entourage Effect”. This is a re-manufactured term taken from “synergistic effect”. One proven example of the entourage effect NOT involving terpenes is the relationship of THC with CBD. We know they act in tandem and the net result is better than the sum of the parts alone. Simply stated, the hypothesis, and that’s all it is, is terpenes will enhance the effect of cannabinoids in a medical way, I.e. certain terpenes (in cannabis flower) will make you up, down, sleepy, calm, motivated, act as an anxiolytic (anti-anxiety), anti-emetic, etc. The entourage effect of terpenes in cannabis is purely hypothetical. There is no scientific or medical evidence that terpenes modulate the effect of cannabinoids on the endocannabinoid receptors in the body (CB1/CB2). In fact, there is more scientific evidence to state the contrary than to support it. When terpenes are isolated and studied (most are synthetically made and added, post production to distillates and extracts) they have medicinal qualities, i.e. Camphene acts as an anti-inflammatory and is a great transdermal for topical medications and Thymol is an anti-bacterial in mouthwash and limonene is an antioxidant. BUT, there is little evidence of the effects of smoking terpenes or the associative (synergistic) effect of cannabinoids and terpenes. It is purely hopeful supposition that terpenes are a ‘value added’ medicinal property of cannabis. Any associative effect is non-quantifiable and thus only hypothetical. Aside from the natural terpenes that you smell and taste in cannabis flower (bud). The terpenes that are used in extracts, distillates, vapes, carts, etc. are all added post-processing, are synthetically made (it’s way to costly and inefficient to extract and isolate usable terpenes from flower) and are used mostly as a viscosity constituent and ‘flavoring’ in vaping. Live rosin is an exception. This is probably the best way to experience natural terpenes in smoking. Unfortunately, in short path distillation and SCE extraction, most of the natural terpenes are stripped out. Want some more controversy? Terpene profiles are part of the genetic disposition of the cannabis strain (cultivar, soon to be replaced by the term chemovar). There is nothing a grower can do to change this profile other than providing controlled stress events, as stated previously, to increase the terpene response within the plant. We can not add different terpenes that did not originally exist in the strains DNA. To make it even more controversial, no two plants (of the same strain) will produce the same exact terpene profile. In fact, no two parts of the same plant will produce the same profile. Differences in lighting zones, irrigation, micro-climates and nutrition uptake will affect this as well. The good part. Outdoor, soil grows show higher, more consistent terpene regularity than indoor CEA (controlled environment agriculture) plants. So, there it is - a primer on terpenes. What say you?

The irony is palpable considering the legislature created the problem. How does one stuff the genie back in the bottle? “No Illegal Imports!” But the legal import of cannabis by those holding ‘legal import licenses’, well those are OK. ???? Beyond the pale!

The term “hemp” means cannabis (Sativa/Indica) in Thailand.

So, I need to prove something to you? I need better evidence? And, you’re going to lecture to me about the “official stance”? Here is the legislation that was NEVER RESCINDED…… On January 29, 2021, Thailand will begin processing applications for licenses to produce, import, export, distribute, and possess hemp (Cannabis sativa). The specific requirements for this significant step in Thailand’s ongoing development of a regulatory regime for hemp are contained in the Ministerial Regulation Re: Application and License for Production, Importation, Exportation, Selling or Possession of Hemp, which was published in the Government Gazette I was part of that process, possessing 4 distinct licenses (what to see them too?) So, please keep insisting it isn’t so. You’re not in the business and anyone can site letter and verse of a simple Google search. If you are in the business and you navigate growers, processors, and distributors you know what’s really going on. There is no question the “stance” is not to allow importation of flower but the reality is there are many, many license holders, grandfathered if you may, that are importing, legally, along with the black market, illegal imports. Hope you’re satisfied but somehow I think that will elude you and many others who are not in the business and just like to repeat what the azzes of the masses are preaching.