Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Cannabis Potency Testing

Discussion in 'Medical Marijuana Usage and Applications' started by mrxscarface, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. For any of you in areas that have potency testing on your medication:

    Has anyone else noticed a drastic increase in potency results on paper, but none in actual potency with the medication? I'm not knocking the labs. They offer extensive testing that most collectives do NOT use. I'm knocking the collectives. I'm knocking the issue that I know for a FACT that at least ONE collective sends in samples that have been trimmed better, and cured longer. I, in all honesty, find that to be extremely misleading, since test results are valid for 60 days. Also, potency testing only needs 1.5 to 2 grams at most. How can 2 grams efficiently gauge an entire 2 month supply of flowers?

    Two months ago, 30% THC was the highest ever tested result in the history of California. Now? There are MULTIPLE strains over 30%, and I've tried at least half of them...they don't measure up. The pictures don't match the nugs, and the potency definitely doesn't. I HIGHLY doubt that growers have successfully accomplished an average of 5% or 6% more potency in such a short time. I honestly believe that collectives, and growers alike, have figured out a way to yield higher results.

    Test results are a scam, plain and simple. Of course, this is all my personal opinion...but does anyone else feel the same way?
     
  2. I remember some discussion about the testing procedures and reporting methods, but don't remember the debate, since I could care less. It comes down to how the test is performed vs how the results are reported. Essentially it is statistics, which mean nothing, but the numbers are thrown around as if they are concrete.

    It comes down to 'semantics' about the reporting method. Kind of like how the government reports a "8% unemployment rate", but they stop counting people after 100 days, and count PhD who work at McD's as being 'employed'.
    Find out what method they use to determine the % and how the % ratio is counted. Comparing different testing methods results is not accurate.

    To me, the claim of 30% THC would mean that one out of every three cells in a sample is pure THC. . . . . Which I call bullshit on.
     

  3. Oh yes, definitely merely statistics. Lab Results in the Bay Area are COMPLETELY different than lab results in Southern California. (In fact, NorCal test results are much more comprehensive, and believable).

    It angers me that these lab results are OK to be used WITHOUT the safety screens. It merely pulls patients in and deceives them, especially when patients think tested strains are completely safe. I've run across improperly cured, and more disgustingly improperly flushed meds that had a supposed 27% level of potency.
     
  4. It's due to the fact that some dispensaries list the THCA numbers as THC. There is no such thing as 30% THC in straight flowers.
     

Share This Page