Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Tetrahydrocannabinolic acid.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Poor prodrug "In vivo’ Misses the Point

As the earlier statement commented on how, upon heating, and directly referred to "by smoking" or by vaporizing, it is—if not plain incorrect-misleading to then call THCA a poor pro-drug in vivo; someone without a decent understanding of pharmacology is going to be thoroughly confused by this. 108.41.203.14 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The study cited for it being a poor prodrug would refer to consuming it orally (such as by mouth like an edible or capsule pill) as opposed to inhalation by smoking or vaporizing. If you eat THCA only a very tiny bit is converted to THC making THCA a poor prodrug to THC. Heating it externally (smoking, vaping, heating with an oven) to convert THCA into THC wouldn't be considered a prodrug. Prodrugs would be a drug metabolized by enzymes in the body into another drug. Gettinglit (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still confused...so thca good or bad? And does Marijuana grow with this inside it naturally or is it genetically altered? Asking for a friend! 2601:541:C102:DBD0:3D9C:355E:E4CA:1DE (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THCA is the primary cannabinoid that psychoactive Cannabis strains produce. When you smoke or vape Cannabis flower the THCA loses its carboxy group from the heat and forms THC which gets a person high. Gettinglit (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the Plants

When I first learned THC-A flower is legal in my area, I assumed the plant was genetically engineered, like how the Covid virus was manufactured at Wuhan, but recently I was told in a conversation that the plant was simply "uncured" cannabis, and sometimes the word "hemp" is used. Lots of words being thrown around, but at the end of the day I get the idea that cured cannabis has a tradition of being illegal, and uncured hemp is legal, which to me means "welcome the new weed, same as the old weed", as it seems there is no difference between what is legal now, and what has been illegal in the past. So what changed? I find no credible source that differentiates between then and now, or this plant and that, save for the idea that the question of being cured or not, is the only difference between what is legal or not. The absence of this simple and rudimentary information, in this Article, affords fertile ground for confabulated and synthesized theories among the general population, many of whom are marijuana smokers, er-I mean THC-A users. Its all feeling a bit like a semantic differentiation without a scientific difference. "Weed is legal now, only now we call it THC-A."

I come to this Article seeking information, and while it seems chock-filled with chemistry, it also seems to be avoiding the most primitive and basic truths. At this point it appears to be a change in language more than a change in biology or chemistry.

Was uncured 1980's "Acapulco Gold" also considered "THC-A Hemp"? Its Orwell all over again. Also, whats the difference between "decarbolization" and "curing", as both seem to be a means by which to create THC, for the purpose of recreational use, which is a point everyone seems to be avoiding addressing. 2603:8081:3A00:30DF:94CA:13CB:8CCE:AF7 (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]