Salutations,
These 4 main packaging weights are found in Québec's SQdC "legal" stores (and presumably elsewhere too): 1 g, 3.5 g, 15 g and 28 g. In addition, practically all genetics happen to correspond either to traditional THC-centric buzz-seeking profiles, the Full-CBD "therapeutic"/"medical" type or even the 1:1 so-called "balanced" category that i can't personally praise as true "stoner"/"droÿé" friendly balance if it's correct to assume CBD molecules can/will occupy THC "receptors"... Then there's the whole matter of THC/CBD "potentialisation" by "entourage effect" molecules, the later actually missing from this animation inspired by a graph of some old Leafly article:
There again i feel most tempted by another assumption; this time lets say the benefit(s) of CBD also have a collective component on top of individual gains, including over long-term periods.
The law forbids purchases in excess of 28 g, meaning if we choose to go with 3.5 g packs then possible permutations partly describe as follows, in particular:
Although "legal" customers may now opt for combined purchases allowing access to 2:1, 3:1 or even 4:1 (THC/CBD) blends it reminds me of yet one more idea: if it's OKay to believe that "genetic encoding" (represented in amber) is physically limited to ~30 % noble molecules production then this may suggest that trade-offs need to be made for optimized THC-centric selections: in other words the more THC the less anything else (and similarily for Full-CBD)... So, IMO 2 conclusions should emerge if we just pay sufficient attention to genetics distribution as illustrated using such statistic sample: #1) it's man-made; #2) any trend for extremes tends to exclude equally-noble companion molecules otherwise potentiating THC/CBD and that's quite a bit about the "entourage effect" i'm afraid!
Oh, we may succeed finding brief hints of qualitative information on SQdC's web site indeed, but it seems to me such system was designed to further reject the already orphaned 2:1, 3:1 or even 4:1 zones - especially in cases where clients can't care less about extreme boundaries and only focuss on seeking a "perfect" buzz, or hope for ailment cures...
Being totally opposed to prohibitionism i prefer to promote free choice from a palette of offers intended to fulfil a customer's specific desires or needs. Sure enough, even years later after TWO cannabis laws (fed. + prov.!!) it turns out Québekers willing to get "legal" are still forced by state-protected monopolies to rely on those dense blue clusters corresponding to mercantile commercial/industrial/political needs rather than ours. Naturally, it won't affect most of us on an individual basis, but even blending won't add much "entourage effect" if it's already absent from both original packages nonetheless - which is one detail the web site won't help with... Yet, if one agrees that extreme boundaries can't reasonably be expected to "bring order into chaos" then this should get considered as a socio-toxic (vilifying) strategy designed to attack relatively rare vulnerable individuals within target populations.
Yes one may manage to create his own suitable blend with just the right THC "potentiation"/"moderation" by CBD, while the rest is kept embryonic and i don't fear getting my present post tagged as conspiracy theory, since the net effect of "Légaleezation" is to dull *ALL* "legal" offers as badly as possible - to invite even more dosing abuse occurrences, followed by tolerance issues and ultimately a pile of contaminated statistics data presented as "science", etc.
...
Truth is, a vast majority of cannabis consumers never need to mind. On another hand Health Canada repeats their savvy "expert" warnings against "the dangers" as if marginal problems constituted some automatic fate for everyone, seriously calling us "chemophobes" on mass media if we ever dare complain about "traces" of Pest Control Products (96 of them, in total absence of long-term studies on toxicity-boosting synergies).
Etc., etc.
Good day, have fun!!
These 4 main packaging weights are found in Québec's SQdC "legal" stores (and presumably elsewhere too): 1 g, 3.5 g, 15 g and 28 g. In addition, practically all genetics happen to correspond either to traditional THC-centric buzz-seeking profiles, the Full-CBD "therapeutic"/"medical" type or even the 1:1 so-called "balanced" category that i can't personally praise as true "stoner"/"droÿé" friendly balance if it's correct to assume CBD molecules can/will occupy THC "receptors"... Then there's the whole matter of THC/CBD "potentialisation" by "entourage effect" molecules, the later actually missing from this animation inspired by a graph of some old Leafly article:
There again i feel most tempted by another assumption; this time lets say the benefit(s) of CBD also have a collective component on top of individual gains, including over long-term periods.
The law forbids purchases in excess of 28 g, meaning if we choose to go with 3.5 g packs then possible permutations partly describe as follows, in particular:
5 THC | 3 CBD | 2:1 | 66.6 % | > 62.5 % |
6 | 2 | 3:1 | 75 % | Exact Match |
7 | 1 | 4:1 | 80 % | < 87.5 % |
Although "legal" customers may now opt for combined purchases allowing access to 2:1, 3:1 or even 4:1 (THC/CBD) blends it reminds me of yet one more idea: if it's OKay to believe that "genetic encoding" (represented in amber) is physically limited to ~30 % noble molecules production then this may suggest that trade-offs need to be made for optimized THC-centric selections: in other words the more THC the less anything else (and similarily for Full-CBD)... So, IMO 2 conclusions should emerge if we just pay sufficient attention to genetics distribution as illustrated using such statistic sample: #1) it's man-made; #2) any trend for extremes tends to exclude equally-noble companion molecules otherwise potentiating THC/CBD and that's quite a bit about the "entourage effect" i'm afraid!
Oh, we may succeed finding brief hints of qualitative information on SQdC's web site indeed, but it seems to me such system was designed to further reject the already orphaned 2:1, 3:1 or even 4:1 zones - especially in cases where clients can't care less about extreme boundaries and only focuss on seeking a "perfect" buzz, or hope for ailment cures...
Being totally opposed to prohibitionism i prefer to promote free choice from a palette of offers intended to fulfil a customer's specific desires or needs. Sure enough, even years later after TWO cannabis laws (fed. + prov.!!) it turns out Québekers willing to get "legal" are still forced by state-protected monopolies to rely on those dense blue clusters corresponding to mercantile commercial/industrial/political needs rather than ours. Naturally, it won't affect most of us on an individual basis, but even blending won't add much "entourage effect" if it's already absent from both original packages nonetheless - which is one detail the web site won't help with... Yet, if one agrees that extreme boundaries can't reasonably be expected to "bring order into chaos" then this should get considered as a socio-toxic (vilifying) strategy designed to attack relatively rare vulnerable individuals within target populations.
Yes one may manage to create his own suitable blend with just the right THC "potentiation"/"moderation" by CBD, while the rest is kept embryonic and i don't fear getting my present post tagged as conspiracy theory, since the net effect of "Légaleezation" is to dull *ALL* "legal" offers as badly as possible - to invite even more dosing abuse occurrences, followed by tolerance issues and ultimately a pile of contaminated statistics data presented as "science", etc.
...
Truth is, a vast majority of cannabis consumers never need to mind. On another hand Health Canada repeats their savvy "expert" warnings against "the dangers" as if marginal problems constituted some automatic fate for everyone, seriously calling us "chemophobes" on mass media if we ever dare complain about "traces" of Pest Control Products (96 of them, in total absence of long-term studies on toxicity-boosting synergies).
Etc., etc.
Good day, have fun!!
Last edited:
