• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Delta-8 warning?

The only concerning thing I took from that was the presence of chlorinated products. I doubt that rearrangements of double bonds, ring openings, and hydrogenations will produce something with jwh/am/abpinica levels of potency or agonism.

Strongest increases in agonism are probably going to come from messing with the chain, and I could see non-alkyl substituients on that being problematic.
 
I avoid D8 because of the unknown activity on CB2 receptors outside of the CNS. My kidneys are fucked; I don’t want some other random part of my body being affected. Odd thing is, it used to be sold on OCS, the Ontario government mail order website. It was pulled because it was not specifically covered under the federal legislation.

Tom
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Perhaps you should read about thalidomide. Small differences in molecular structure can lead to big differences in protein binding. Any medicinal chemist worth their salt will tell you this

en.m.wikipedia.org

Thalidomide - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

What were we supposed to read in that link?


Thomas Davie said:
I avoid D8 because of the unknown activity on CB2 receptors outside of the CNS. My kidneys are fucked; I don’t want some other random part of my body being affected. Odd thing is, it used to be sold on OCS, the Ontario government mail order website. It was pulled because it was not specifically covered under the federal legislation.

Tom
Click to expand...

The activity on the CB2 receptors is a big issue with ∆8 for me as well. In my case, it's because of larger doses to get high (because of lesser CB1 tickling) result in quick tolerance increase. I know a girl who likes the convenience of ∆8 and is taking hundreds of milligrams a day now. I never thought of it causing issues for people with kidney (etc) problems. Makes sense. Interesting.

You can usually get a good product as to contaminates by using a good company. But, yeah, even that's not a sure thing. I don't mess with the legal cannabinoids anymore. Ya know what? Natural stuff is always better on your body. Whiskey causes more issues than beer or even strong wine.

Edited to add: I wouldn't worry too much about other trace cannabinoids. As Skorpio said, I wouldn't think anything of the potency required to be an issue would be produced.
I do like that the chemist says that the answer is legalization.
 
Last edited:
The point is that small changes in molecular structure can mean big differences in protein binding and we don't know about the binding of many of these novel cannabinoids
 
someguyontheinternet said:
In your words, what is the difference between an enantiomer and an isomer?
Click to expand...
Mirror image molecules and same formula, different arrangement molecules. No, I didn't have to look that one up. That's fairly common knowledge, I think.
So, come to think of it, an enantiometer is an isomer.
Haven't heard of any THC isomers having vastly differing biological properties.

Did you read in your link that, ultimately, both enantiometers cause birth defects since one converts to the other?
 
Last edited:
Yes one converts to the other but that doesn't negate the point that the small difference creates the change in binding. Not all isomers or enantiomers will be converted either so that's rather besides the point

Just because you haven't heard of something not happening doesn't make it any less likely, we still don't know about a lot of bindings and protein interactions
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Yes one converts to the other but that doesn't negate the point that the small difference creates the change in binding. Not all isomers or enantiomers will be converted either so that's rather besides the point

Just because you haven't heard of something not happening doesn't make it any less likely, we still don't know about a lot of bindings and protein interactions
Click to expand...
Actually, if something has never happened, it does make it less likely. Wouldn't you think?
 
JahBeeuS said:
Just because it hasn't been recorded doesn't mean it can't happen.

If I flip a coin 7 times and it's heads every time the next time I flip the coin is a 50% likelihood that it's tails.
Click to expand...
Difference between "less likely" and "can't happen". We are talking about chemical properties and not random chance.
 
Ah yes because we definitely know about the majority of biochemical interactions, I guess I must have missed the memo that all of the mysteries of life have been solved. Guess that puts me out of a job :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top