logo
Inside the lab-driven quest for the ultimate high

Inside the lab-driven quest for the ultimate high

Extraction labs take the oily essence of cannabis and transform it into highly potent concentrates with dramatically varied textures. Both the live sauce and crushed diamonds shown here, from California cannabis producer Raw Garden, can be consumed by dabbing, a process of heating a concentrate and inhaling its vapors. Photographs by Sergiy Barchuk This article is part of The New Cannabis, a National Geographic exploration into the most critical questions raised by today's stronger, stranger, ever more accessible weed. Learn more.
In a white-walled lab inside the vast manufacturing facility of California cannabis company Raw Garden, the bouquet of marijuana is unmistakable, even without a plant or bud in sight. Technicians in lab coats monitor armoire-size machines that rattle as they refine flask after multi-liter flask of amber-colored, cannabis-scented oil. In a room around the corner, near a row of vacuum ovens, the same extracted oil has been used to make an array of concoctions set out on steel tables in trays, jars, and Pyrex dishes.
They range from viscous semiliquids that ooze like tree sap to creamy pastes resembling peanut butter. A few trays contain glasslike golden shards, and there's a crystallizing substance akin to aging honey. Together the products represent a substantial shift in how Americans consume pot: Year after year, they are smoking proportionately less of it and instead embracing more products made with its extracted oil. These include edibles, like gummies and beverages, but also new types of high-potency concentrates that are consumed, not by smoking, but by vaping or what's known as dabbing—flash vaporizing dabs of thick extract. And these concentrates are radically altering the experience of getting high.
Like other modern cannabis companies, Raw Garden still grows weed, but it is primarily a raw material, something to be processed into goop for an arguably heightened experience. If you think the heart of the United States' roughly $32 billion cannabis industry looks like a farm or a grow room, think again: It increasingly looks like these industrial chem labs, full of scientists imagining new frontiers of mind-blowing offerings.
Such cannabis concentrates are often named for their textures: sauce, wax, shatter, diamonds, and more. They are dizzyingly more potent than the joint you might have smoked 20 or 40 years ago. And, of course, they are now legal in many states, as policy shifts have helped launch a space race in the cannabis industry, with entrepreneurs developing more sophisticated techniques to alchemize plant matter into a kaleidoscope of forms and flavors.
The rise of the high-potency concentrates market comes at a time when marijuana flower—traditional smokable cannabis—is already pretty darn powerful. Thanks to advances in crop science, pot grown in the U.S. has been bred to be substantially stronger than it was a few decades back. Potency in cannabis products is typically expressed as a concentration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the compound in marijuana that is primarily, though not exclusively, responsible for its psychoactive effects. While precise numbers are tricky to come by, studies suggest that THC levels in marijuana sold in the U.S. 30 years ago averaged somewhere in the single digits. Today, at a time when many states require lab-verified potency labels on legal products, the average is somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.
Cannabis concentrates, however, result from an extraction process that isolates only the desired compounds, prominently including THC, from pesky plant matter. Raw Garden advertises a product called live sauce—a golden goo described as having an applesauce consistency—at around 70 percent THC potency, depending on the strain used to make it. The company's refined live resin diamonds, which look like something you'd find at a gem show, can top out above 85 percent.
For some, the THC content—and hence, the rapidity and intensity of the buzz—is the point. High-potency vapes and dabs get users high with smaller amounts than other means of ingesting cannabis. But the draw also has to do with the subtlety of flavors and precision of one's intake, says Raw Garden chief brand officer Dmitri Siegel. It's 'a purity thing,' he says, 'where you're either getting a really distilled high or you're getting a really distilled flavor. You're not burning a whole lot of organic matter.' The many manifestations of modern cannabis include (left to right) cartridges of vape oil, gummy candies of varying potency, pre-rolled joints sold like cigarettes, and the buds the industry calls "flower."
Handheld vaporizers are also less conspicuous, notes cannabis-industry analyst and consultant Tom Adams, president of Adams Research. Some concentrate users are enticed by the discreetness of taking a quick toke off a small amount of oil or applesauce-like gel. 'It just seems odd as an adult to be taking weed out of a bag, crushing it up, and rolling it,' he says. 'What am I, a cowboy?'
Adams, who has analyzed the legal cannabis market since 2015, says demand for legal concentrates originated in the first medical dispensaries. Smoking can be impractical for those looking to consume hundreds of milligrams of THC each day—a substantial amount, but which may nonetheless be what brings relief to chemotherapy patients or sufferers of chronic pain. Edibles can pose problems for patients with appetite or gastrointestinal issues.
And concentrates, whether for medical or recreational use, arguably make it easier to regulate dosage. Sure, Adams allows, pre-rolled joints, with measured amounts of flower, offer some consistency. 'But even that is less predictable than the cleaned-up, scientifically produced concentrate that you know exactly what the impact is going to be,' he says. Rolling your own? Stuffing erratic hunks of vegetable matter into a pipe? It's a hard sell, says Adams: 'Consumers are just not used to the primitiveness.'
The quest to concentrate the psychoactive components of cannabis goes back to at least the 11th century, when hashish caught on recreationally in the Arab world. Hashish is made from plant glands now known as trichomes, which early hashmakers rubbed or sieved off the surface of cannabis leaves and buds, then pressed into a sort of cake. Trichomes are rich in bioactive compounds called cannabinoids, the most well known of which are THC and cannabidiol, or CBD. They also contain other specialized compounds, such as terpenes, the hydrocarbons responsible for plants' aromas and flavors.
Today's cannabis processors have built on medieval methods, finding new, efficient ways to isolate those prized compounds. Among the most common is hydrocarbon extraction, in which a solvent separates desired chemicals from raw plant material. Butane and propane are the industry-standard solvents, and prior to widespread legalization, back when extraction was an underground hobby, use of these combustible materials occasionally resulted in hotel rooms and apartments blowing up. FEMA went so far as to issue a bulletin in 2013 warning, 'Hash Oil Explosions Increasing Across U.S.'
But during the wave of state legalization that has swept the country since, cannabis extraction has gone mainstream, and today companies like Raw Garden are subject to licensure, regulations, and inspections.
The basis of nearly all Raw Garden products is the oily substance known as live resin, a cannabis extract that aims to capture a wide array of those cannabinoids and terpenes (some extraction processes, by contrast, isolate only a single compound—usually THC or CBD). But before they become oil, all of the company's offerings start out as plants on 54 acres of farmland in the Santa Barbara wine country. At harvest time, the plants are cut, then the buds are removed and immediately flash frozen with liquid nitrogen in a cryogenic tunnel, preserving all those volatile organic compounds.
From the farm, the pot is trucked to a cold-storage warehouse in nearby Lompoc, where it's placed in a deep freeze. When any given strain is up for extraction, the frozen buds are moved to a manufacturing facility up the road, where they're loaded into six-foot-tall stainless steel columns, each of which can hold about 18 pounds of pot. Inside, they're saturated with pressurized solvent that dissolves the desired chemicals and leaves behind unwanted biomass.
Later stages for some products include one in which the crude extract is purified, with fats, waxes, lipids, and other solids filtered out. Other products cook for 24 to 36 hours in a vacuum oven to purge away residual solvent, the pressure inside the oven lowered so that the solvent evaporates without any of the good stuff boiling off.
Using solvents isn't the only way to make an extract. Raw Garden sends a small amount of its harvest to a partner facility, where it's turned into a hashish-like product called rosin via a simpler process, using only ice water, heat, and pressure. But hydrocarbon extraction is scalable and highly efficient: Raw Garden's facility processes around 1,200 pounds of cannabis a day, and has plans to expand.
This isn't to say there's no art to it. A concentrate's consistency—that is, whether the live resin turns into something creamy or crispy or oily—results from the strain one starts with, as well as small, inspired interventions during extraction. What if we whipped the extract before purging it? What if we cured it so that crystals form? Extract bound for vape cartridges sometimes involves an additional step, in which terpenes are evaporated and collected in a distillation column, then selectively reinserted to achieve specific scent and flavor profiles. In Raw Garden's vape lab, a colorful aroma wheel shows a hundred-plus fragrances one might allegedly encounter in cannabis, like apricot, sage, pine tar, and espresso. 'We're taking aromatic compounds from plants,' says vice president of agricultural operations Casey Birthisel. 'There's a lot here that's parallel to the perfume industry.'
Some medical professionals see more alarming parallels, however, to drugs ostensibly harder than cannabis. The sky-high potency of concentrates has raised red flags, as multiple epidemiological studies have found correlations between their frequent use and increased risks of psychosis and cannabis use disorder, a form of dependence. Those risks seem particularly acute for teenagers. Colorado and Washington, the first states to legalize recreational pot, are among the states where bills to limit THC potency have been introduced, then rejected or withdrawn amid industry pushback.
Meanwhile, according to analyst Adams, sales of marijuana flower made up about 70 percent of the recreational market when the first legal retailers opened in Colorado in 2014. Today, according to point-of-sale data from Adams and market research firm BDSA, that number has dropped to 40 percent. In the same span, sales of vaping and dabbing products have climbed from around 15 percent of the legal market to 32 percent, though the pace of that growth now seems to be slowing.
It's all a function, Adams says, of a 'reunion of technology and cannabis' brought about by legalization. Ironically, what excites him most about the future of extraction has nothing to do with THC. The next big thing in cannabis, Adams suggests, might derive from the industry's ability to efficiently isolate all those other compounds. What new effects are there to discover from the terpenes? Or from the more than a hundred other little-researched cannabinoids that aren't THC or CBD?
'We are totally revolutionizing the view of what the compounds in the plant can do through the concentrates side of the market,' he says. 'That opens up the uses to all sorts of things other than sitting on the couch watching Netflix.' This story appears in the September 2025 issue of National Geographic magazine.
Set Design: Mat Cullen, Lalaland Artists
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Drinking Rate Plunges to Record Low in US, New Poll Shows
Drinking Rate Plunges to Record Low in US, New Poll Shows

Newsweek

time35 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Drinking Rate Plunges to Record Low in US, New Poll Shows

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Alcohol consumption among U.S. adults has fallen to its lowest recorded level in nearly 90 years, with 54 percent saying they drink, down from 58 percent a year ago, according to Gallup's latest annual survey. Why It Matters Gallup has tracked alcohol consumption among U.S. adults since 1939. The latest figure falls below the previous record low of 55 percent in 1958. The poll also found that a majority of Americans, 53 percent, believe that moderate drinking is bad for one's health. Alcohol can lead to many health problems, including liver diseases and increased risk of some cancers. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. Mixed drinks are displayed at a bar in Baltimore on February 8, 2023. AP Photo/Julio Cortez What To Know The latest Gallup survey, conducted July 7-21, found that a smaller share of Americans are drinking alcohol than at any point in the poll's history. In the mid-1970s, the share peaked at 71 percent for three consecutive years starting in 1976. Since then, drinking rates have generally trended downward, averaging about 60 percent, with periodic rises and dips. In 2022, 67 percent of adults said they drank alcohol, which Gallup noted as an outlier, followed by 62 percent in 2023, 58 percent in 2024 and 54 percent this year. The poll found that the decline in drinking is disproportionately among women, down 11 percentage points since 2023, to 51 percent, whereas men are down 5 points, at 57 percent. Along party lines, 61 percent of surveyed Democrats drink compared with 46 percent of Republicans. A record-low 54% of Americans say they consume alcohol. — Gallup (@Gallup) August 13, 2025 The survey also found that 53 percent of Americans say drinking in moderation, which is one to two drinks a day, is bad for one's health. Thirty-seven percent believe it does not make a difference. The results come as 45 percent of Americans believe moderate drinking is bad for health, according to a Gallup poll last year. That poll found drinking beliefs vary greatly among age groups, with 65 percent of young U.S. adults aged 18 to 34 believing that alcohol consumption negatively affects one's health, while 37 percent and 39 percent hold that view among those aged 35 to 54 and 55 and older, respectively. The view has shifted sharply in recent years. Between 2001 and 2011, about 25 percent of Americans said drinking was good for one's health. Women are more likely than men to view moderate drinking as unhealthy, 60 percent to 47 percent, respectively. The poll also found the lowest recorded figure of average number of drinks over the past week since 1996 at 2.8. What People Are Saying Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of social research, in the August 13 survey announcement: "The declines in alcohol consumption does not appear to be caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances—in particular, recreational marijuana, which is now legal in about half of U.S. states." The Office of the Surgeon General, in a January 2025 announcement: "Alcohol consumption is the third-leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, after tobacco and obesity." What Happens Next As Americans' drinking habits shift, the change is expected to affect the alcohol industry as well as the growing market for alternative beverages, driven in part by rising health concerns.

A record share of Americans are giving booze the boot
A record share of Americans are giving booze the boot

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

A record share of Americans are giving booze the boot

The percentage of U.S. adults consuming alcohol has hit a new low, according to Gallup data released Wednesday. The big picture: The share of Americans who say that drinking in moderation is detrimental to one's health hitting a historic high, a belief that's echoed by recent scientific research. Driving the news: In 2025, just over half (54%) of U.S. adults reported having alcoholic beverages on occasion. Between 1997 and 2023, at least 60% said they drank. Drinking among young adults had been trending downward, and Gallup notes that has only accelerated. Since 2023, the percentage of adults under 35 that reported drinking fell by nine percentage points, from 59% to 50%. Zoom in: The drop in women drinking from 2023 to 2025 has been more pronounced than it has among men, though both groups have seen a decline. Among partisans, there's a drinking divide: Among Republicans, the share who drink has dropped sharply in the last two years (19 percentage points), but there's only been a three-point slip for Democrats. State of play: Meanwhile, the majority of Americans — a first for Gallup's trend — say drinking in moderation (one or two drinks a day) is bad for one's health. That belief follows increases in 2023 and 2024, including a surge among young adults. Around 2001 to 2011, the share of U.S. adults who said moderate alcohol consumption was bad for one's health hovered around a quarter. Since 2023, a majority of 18- to 34-year-olds have viewed moderate drinking as bad for health. Follow the money: And as alcohol consumption has slipped, the nonalcoholic beverage sector has boomed. Bars and bottle shops in recent years have increasingly catered to the "sober-curious" as consumer behavior mirrors consumption trends. Zoom out: Research and health organization guidance on safe alcohol consumption has evolved in recent years. Notably, former U.S. surgeon general Vivek Murthy in January released an advisory detailing the link between alcohol consumption and several kinds of cancer and called on Congress to update warning labels on booze. The World Health Organization has emphasized that there is no safe amount of alcohol consumption that does not affect health, and the CDC warns that drinking in moderation may "increase your overall risks of death and chronic disease." The bottom line: Goodbye, "Dry January." Cheers to sober lifestyles. Methodology: Results are based on telephone interviews conducted by ReconMR July 7-21 2025, with a random sample of 1,002 adults. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'

THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier‬‭ model developers‬‭ compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel‬‭ regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented‬‭ agreement with a relevant US federal government agency‬‭.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store