Re:Wrigley and others are suing over look-alike THC treats
by ryanlol on Saturday May 29, 2021 @05:17AM
(#27324026)
It is scaremongering. Synthetic cannabinoids are commonly sold, but they are not commonly sold as cannabis as berndi suggests.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Wrigley and others are suing over look-alike THC treats
by detritus on Saturday May 29, 2021 @07:27AM
(#27324551)
Here in the UK years back, unscrupulous growers sprayed the silicate-based additive used in road paintmarkings for reflectivity, as when applied to the buds it made it look like they were of incredibly high quality.
This was not scaremongering, I bought some myself. Twice.
I have connections with people in the old synthetic cannabinoid industry and know how cheap that shit is to buy and how easy it is to order from China, so I don't see in any way it being a stretch of the imagination to envisage people growing poor quality weed and adding to it.
Re:Wrigley and others are suing over look-alike THC treats
by eyelidlessness on Saturday May 29, 2021 @11:49AM
(#27326015)
I’m not sure the distinction matters to lots of customers. “Synthetic cannabinoids” as a term suggests to customers that they’re buying something like synthetic cannabis, even if it has significantly different effects, and even if it’s chemically nothing like actual cannabinoids. The only regulation (at least in parts of the US where I’ve looked into it) is banning them where possible, but like whack-a-mole new ones spring up, with new compounds and the same implication that it’s ~weed.
Re:Wrigley and others are suing over look-alike THC treats
by nougatbyte on Saturday May 29, 2021 @06:45AM
(#27324348)
Where I live in Germany it may not be the norm but I also came across it several times. Nasty stuff if you suspect something different
Re:Wrigley and others are suing over look-alike THC treats
by lallysingh on Saturday May 29, 2021 @08:02AM
(#27324701)
Sounds like a dispute over facts. Bring URLs to defend your case.