Of all the ways to evaluate the quality of cannabis — from lab analyses that measure cannabinoid content and terpene profiles to the time-honored ritual of smelling and visually examining buds for desired traits — one method seems to be far more contentious than others. It’s the idea that good weed, when burned, leaves behind a white ash.
Walk into damn near any dispensary in the country and you’ll likely meet at least one budtender who adamantly believes this.
Log on to social media and it’s not hard to find self-proclaimed experts vociferously promoting the white ash theory.
Mingle with the crowd at any number of cannabis business or culture events anywhere in North America and you’ll probably run into people — whether they wear starched suits or well-worn hoodies or anything in between — who say white ash is a leading identifier for top-shelf bud.
But this theory, like many myths regarding cannabis, seems to be mostly bullshit.
High Times actually wrote a great article on this subject recently, saying the white ash phenomenon “can be easily faked, gamed, cheated, duped and bamboozled using particular cultivation techniques, smoking methods, and as shown by recent court documents: adding small amounts of chalk to the rolling paper.”
Patrick Maravelias’ article takes a deep dive on the controversial topic, looking at cultivation techniques that can elicit the vaunted white ash (an extra dose of calcium and magnesium during flowering, apparently), whether some rolling paper manufacturers use calcium carbonate as a whitening agent (yes, according to court records, patent filings and other sources) and linking the tactics to Big Tobacco marketing from a time when cigarettes were still hocked by the world’s most recognized celebrities and even cartoon characters like the Flintstones.
High Times is not the only publication to take aim at this longstanding myth. Allison Justice and Markus Roggen, two of the leading Ph.D.s working in cannabis, wrote an article in 2022 examining the ins and outs of white ash, pointing out that wildfire research pinpoints burn temperature as the most significant factor in the color of ash.
The pair of experts also examines another all-too-often-repeated cannabis myth — that of the all-important “flush” and whether an insufficient flush will result in harsh smoke and darker ash. I’ve heard numerous consumers over the years claiming, without any knowledge of a growers’ methods, that the crop must not have been flushed properly — an unforgivable sin. Clearly, this allegedly crucial and simple detail was skipped (and the grower, obviously an idiot), because of the harshness of the smoke, the darkness of the ash, the noticeable flavor of nutrients, etc., etc. The more this explanation is repeated, the more it becomes cannabis lore … but it doesn’t make it any more accurate.
Although Justice and Roggen acknowledge further research is needed, the one scientific paper they found on the subject “does destroy the theory that flushing removes nutrient elements from a (cannabis) plant.”
I’m sure Jonathan Stemeroff’s thesis, “Irrigation Management Strategies for Medical Cannabis in Controlled Environments,” is fascinating reading. I’ll leave it up to people who are smarter than I am to decipher.
These articles highlight a variety of concerns that affect the cannabis industry at large. Consumers should have more information about the inputs and methods that are used to produce their cannabis products, from nutrients and pesticides to rolling papers and extraction solvents. They should know whether their cannabis has been irradiated, or whether it previously failed a microbial test before being blasted into oil. These things may or may not be associated specifically with health concerns, but that’s not the point; the point is that consumers should have the information to make their own choice.
I asked one person how consumers can better understand the ingredients and inputs of the products they’re using; “Ask questions, demand answers,” he said.
Perhaps most importantly, these articles and research papers highlight the challenges and inherent dangers of misinformation, a problem that plagues our entire society today. While the internet has given us better access to all the published information in the world, it has also made it easier to spread lies, from the subtle fabrications to the tallest of tall tales.
You’d think the legal cannabis industry would be hungry for good, scientifically verifiable and accurate information to share with the world. After all, cannabis has for nearly a century been demonized by a flood of weaponized misinformation. It makes you go crazy (Harry Anslinger). It’s a gateway drug (D.A.R.E.). It’s highly addictive and void of medical uses (the federal government). It reduces your sperm count (all of our moms). Even today, prohibitionist groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana base much of their anti-legalization messaging on fear mongering and the use of outright lies that have been refuted many times over.
In reference to the flush myth, Justice and Roggen write, “This is an example of how easy answers based on poorly informed beliefs likely are not correct.”
I think that perfectly sums up my argument, and it brings me back to the white ash theory. It’s not that white ash is or is not a marker for high-quality cannabis. It’s the idea that it’s the supreme measuring stick for quality. That’s an overly simple answer for a highly complex question.
The quality of cannabis should be judged by flavor, by experience — not based on some idyllic standard on social media.