BudGuy
Filling Out
- Messages
- 311
- Likes/Reactions
- 683
- Clinic
- 🏴 Mamedica®
I wonder what the actual criteria are for pharmacies in terms of their quality checks. Are we just assuming that their quality checks involve stuff we care about? Do the publish this information anywhere or would it be subject to an FOI request or what?
Surely, for example, there must be an actual numerical value for the upper limit of how much the flower can be stalks, by weight, for example? Either they track that at quality control somehow, or they don't. If they do, we should be able to find out what it is, and check for ourselves if it's being met. If they don't, then we need to complain to get that added to their criteria. There's no point in us complaining about poor quality if it's not even a metric they measure, so I think we need to get a concrete definition of what the criteria are so we can either campaign to make sure the criteria includes stuff we care about, and know what the actual numerical limits are so we know when our complaints will be justified according to the criteria.
Are they simply using THC% as the measure? Even there, come to think of it, I don't know what the limits are. If they advertise as T23, is it bang on 23% in every single batch? Or can that go up and down by as much as 5% in any given batch?
To be completely honest with you all, I have absolutely no idea what makes good quality vs bad quality cannabis. I've never grown my own, I've only ever really had a handful of black market sources, and while I've spent a lot of time in the Netherlands, even there I'm not entirely sure if I'm being given top shelf stuff or just being labelled a tourist as soon as I walk in and given any old rubbish.
Obviously there's the black and white stuff like it shouldn't be mouldy, or have browning leaves, or any of that stuff.
But I've heard a lot of anecdotal stuff about seeds vs no seeds/dry vs hydrated/leafy vs buddy/etc, etc, but I don't know what to make of any of it. I've never read any studies which tested them in any meaningful way, which probably explains why companies don't track it for quality control. And in my own experience I've had leafy cannabis in the past which seemed almost devoid of trichomes, yet knocked me flat, and I've had extremely frosty buds that had almost no effect. But then I've also had batches which knock me on my arse in the first couple of sessions, then I barely get any effect out of them after that, so it's not even as if the strength of effects is a consistent quality marker even on an anecdotal basis.
So yeah, I'm really confused about it all, and I want the scientists to go out and work out what affect all these metrics have on cannabis quality, all the clinics to use this research to come up, publish and abide by their quality control procedures and be able to check my delivery against them easily and without nuance.
Surely, for example, there must be an actual numerical value for the upper limit of how much the flower can be stalks, by weight, for example? Either they track that at quality control somehow, or they don't. If they do, we should be able to find out what it is, and check for ourselves if it's being met. If they don't, then we need to complain to get that added to their criteria. There's no point in us complaining about poor quality if it's not even a metric they measure, so I think we need to get a concrete definition of what the criteria are so we can either campaign to make sure the criteria includes stuff we care about, and know what the actual numerical limits are so we know when our complaints will be justified according to the criteria.
Are they simply using THC% as the measure? Even there, come to think of it, I don't know what the limits are. If they advertise as T23, is it bang on 23% in every single batch? Or can that go up and down by as much as 5% in any given batch?
To be completely honest with you all, I have absolutely no idea what makes good quality vs bad quality cannabis. I've never grown my own, I've only ever really had a handful of black market sources, and while I've spent a lot of time in the Netherlands, even there I'm not entirely sure if I'm being given top shelf stuff or just being labelled a tourist as soon as I walk in and given any old rubbish.
Obviously there's the black and white stuff like it shouldn't be mouldy, or have browning leaves, or any of that stuff.
But I've heard a lot of anecdotal stuff about seeds vs no seeds/dry vs hydrated/leafy vs buddy/etc, etc, but I don't know what to make of any of it. I've never read any studies which tested them in any meaningful way, which probably explains why companies don't track it for quality control. And in my own experience I've had leafy cannabis in the past which seemed almost devoid of trichomes, yet knocked me flat, and I've had extremely frosty buds that had almost no effect. But then I've also had batches which knock me on my arse in the first couple of sessions, then I barely get any effect out of them after that, so it's not even as if the strength of effects is a consistent quality marker even on an anecdotal basis.
So yeah, I'm really confused about it all, and I want the scientists to go out and work out what affect all these metrics have on cannabis quality, all the clinics to use this research to come up, publish and abide by their quality control procedures and be able to check my delivery against them easily and without nuance.
