So, I cant speak to the HCC-O issue really, because i havent tried it, but i can talk about the chemistry involved in the design, and some of the legality concerns in countries yet to specifically address its scheduling status. basically, because these compounds are novel and require advanced laboratory equipment to prepare, there is a really strong public health argument centred on food standards, for import and distribution.
HCC was originally conceived as a hypothetical protective procedure to apply to THC, to render it in a reduced oxidation state, upon observing oxidative biproducts formed during heating in the vaporisation process. While its unlikely that HCC is oxidised directly to THC (more likely some similar compound or rearrangement - but with likely similar psychoactive properties, as these result from the physical properties primarily, before stereoscopic and spectral considerations. things like solubility, viscosity (if not quite binding affinity) being common between steric analogues) it is still one step further from oxidised THC itself, which is less psycoactive, having a higher boiling point and lowered solubility, especially as oxidation at temperature can entropically promote dehydration reactions to be pushed forwards, which results in polymerization, and the destruction of activity. the reduced compound may be less prone to these effects of continued heating, and so be more amenable to vaping. so thats the reduction part. THC -> HCC. but what about the THC-O -> HCC-O?
THC-O is a directly psychedelic compound, and based on user experience reports, this property is shared in HCC-O. in the UK there is a specific clause pertaining to THC-O, so it is interesting to consider how HCC, as compared to HCC-O, may be subject to differing restrictions. arguments towards blanket legalization do not reflect the nuanced difference in these chemicals. also, because of the farm bill in the US, there is precedent that CBD derived actives like delta-8 should be treated like CBD, and not as analogues of THC, since they are produced from CBD, and there is no chance in hell that they would be able to reproduce THC-9. thats the whole reason we have deltas 8,10. because you cant actually get to 9 from CBD. these are CBD products in the eyes of chemistry and so presumably the law, though the distinction is confused by the analogies act, combined with the mislabling of d8,10 as analogues of THC which it is a stretch of the imagination to take seriously, given experience of the nature of chemsitry.
the anticipated logical conclusion is that as d8,10 cannot be considered to be illigal as d9 analogues, and actualy more closely resemble CBD, which is legal (admittedly only for its lack of psycoactivity (not a CB1 agoist) - but thats not how the law is structured, it does not go off the targeted receptor. perhaps it should, but it doesnt)). furthermore, if 8,10 are to be considered legal, but *similar in effect* to d9. then there is a strong case to support the similar treatment of d9. this obviously resembles legalisation, which governments are often reluctant towards, but in actuality, because the d9 can have stipulations placed on the form, quality, purity, and delivery form, all of which can be regulated in terms of FDA standards, then it need not resemble a legality which extends to bud. ie, opening up a legal vape market, reflects the quality control from the processing required, and reflects this public health benefit by corresponding legal stipulation. now, back to HCC-O. would it be part of a legal vape-only concentrates market. likely not. HCC would be for sure, probably the most acceptable compound, having been specifically designed for oxidative resistance to make it better for vaping. but THC-O has already come under scrutiny in the US. there are functional alterations which drasticaally change the effects on the central nervous system, that create a justifiable caution in the eyes of the regulator. if there were any compound they would step in to specifically preclude, owing to its dangerous novelty, it would be THC-O and by extension, presumably, HCC-O. the idea is that, if you wanted a recreational drug market, that could adiquately provide inhomogenous regulation to different chemicals, it would have to be mature, and in the current setup, its either, available or not, with no degredations, eg, different age restrictions, or idk, like a doctors oversight in some prescribing setup. so in this setup that we have, we should accept a token sacrifice, to allow them to express the only inhomogeaity stipulations they have available, in the hope that with this public health measure in place, that the deemed responsibility is adequate to satisfy lawmakers and government towards due diligence and responsible conduct. this would be the best path forwards for giving a structure that can be adopted by conservative governments that are cautious about reckless change. it ensures availability of the principle compounds of interest to vape manufacturers, THC and HCC, while precluding the clearly more abuse worthy psychedelic modifications in THC-O and HCC-O.
p.s. you can always just have the O-acetate varieties legal by state. federal legalisation of d8,9,10+HCC, and simply no stiplulation towards THC-O and HCC-O would allow states to regulate these specifically in their chosen way, so eg, if these psychedelic O-acetate versions are not available in one state, they might be in another. that is to say, even if we offer up the O-acetates as sacrifice to try and push for the federal or international legalisation of 9d, that does not necessarily mean they would become totally unavailable, as different geographic regions may treat this differently.
+d9o. for reference i smoke delta 9/thc flower several times a day as is, my tolerance is pretty high as is.
