C21H30O2 · MW ≈ 314.46 · CAS 21366-63-2 · PubChem CID 30607 · tetracyclic · non-intoxicating · a photochemical degradation product of CBC (forms under light/UV/heat) · trace in aged cannabis · essentially unstudied
40 questions are answered here. 21 carry a verified grade on the six-rung evidence ladder. 15 are marked with an evidence state rather than a rung — most often no primary evidence, which means our registry holds nothing on that question. That is not the same claim as not supported, and we do not render it as one. The remaining 4 carry an author qualifier that is not yet part of the controlled vocabulary, so they are shown without a grade chip rather than with a guessed one — catalogue in progress.
Verified science — what CBL *is*, its formula/CAS, how it forms from CBC under light, and that it is not known to be intoxicating — is stated as fact with a grade. CBL is one of the least-studied cannabinoids and our registry holds **no verified pharmacology** for it, so every effect statement is **reported as a third-party claim** with the honest limit; **CBG Atlas does not make, adopt, or affirm these claims**. Not medical or legal advice.
CBL (cannabicyclol) is a rare, non-intoxicating minor cannabinoid formed when CBC breaks down under light or heat — a degradation product, not something the plant makes with an enzyme. It occurs in trace amounts in aged cannabis and is one of the least-studied cannabinoids.
CBL stands for cannabicyclol, a name that reflects its structure — a tetracyclic ("cyclo") cannabinoid formed by an internal ring-closing reaction when CBC is exposed to light. Its formula is C21H30O2, molecular weight ≈ 314.46, CAS 21366-63-2, PubChem CID 30607. That chemical identity is Established; CBL's biology is not, and stays catalogue in progress.
Yes. CBL is a photochemical degradation product of CBC: ultraviolet light (and heat) drives a [2+2] ring-closing reaction that converts CBC into CBL over time. It is not enzyme-made — it accumulates as fresh cannabis ages, much as CBN forms from THC.
Yes, in a sense — CBL occurs naturally in aged or light-exposed cannabis, but as a breakdown product of CBC rather than a compound the living plant synthesizes directly. It is typically present only in trace amounts (well under 0.1%).
CBL is not known to be intoxicating — it is generally considered non-intoxicating, and there is no evidence it produces a THC-like high. That said, CBL's pharmacology is essentially unstudied, so this reflects current understanding and its structure rather than extensive testing.
No — CBL is not known to be psychoactive or intoxicating. But because almost no pharmacological research exists on CBL at all, any statement about subtle psychoactive effects would be speculation: no verified human data characterise CBL's effects in either direction. That is untested, not tested-and-ruled-out, and it stays catalogue in progress rather than becoming a claim.
Essentially unknown, and we would rather say so. CBL is one of the least-studied cannabinoids: our gated registry holds no verified pharmacology for CBL — no confirmed receptor activity, no confirmed enzyme activity, nothing catalogued here in either direction. That is a coverage statement about this registry, not a finding against CBL, and we do not fill the gap with guesses. Catalogue in progress. (Not medical advice.)
There is no verified evidence that CBL is biologically active in any specific way. Unlike some cannabinoids, which at least have in-vitro receptor data, CBL has essentially none catalogued in our registry — the question is untested rather than tested-and-null. Any "activity" claim you meet is therefore unsupported rather than disproven. Catalogue in progress. (Not medical advice.)
Legality depends on source and jurisdiction, not the molecule alone. Where hemp-derived cannabinoids under 0.3% Δ⁹-THC are permitted, CBL generally falls in that framework; elsewhere it may be restricted. This is a general, dated snapshot (2026-07-11), not legal advice — verify locally.
Generally yes, with one important limit. In the US, hemp-derived CBL in a product at or below 0.3% Δ⁹-THC by dry weight is generally federally legal as a hemp product under the 2018 Farm Bill — but the FDA has not authorised cannabinoids as foods or dietary supplements, so a lawful hemp derivative is not automatically a lawful food ingredient. Dated 2026-07-11; general information, not legal advice.
CBL's status depends on your state, and we cannot determine that for you here. US state laws vary, and some restrict hemp cannabinoids more tightly than federal law. CBL is essentially never named specifically in statute, so it usually inherits your state's general hemp and THC rules. Check your state's current statute, or ask a qualified attorney. Dated 2026-07-11; informational only, not legal advice.
Generally no — not as a food or supplement you can freely sell. The EU and UK classify extracted cannabinoids as novel foods requiring authorisation, and CBL is not specifically authorised; Canada regulates isolated phytocannabinoids under the Cannabis Act. Rules differ by product class and change often, so verify the current national position before relying on this. Dated 2026-07-11; general information, not legal advice.
None are established. CBL is among the least-studied cannabinoids, with no verified human or preclinical evidence for any benefit. Any benefit you see claimed is marketing or folklore, not proven, and CBG Atlas does not affirm it (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
CBL has no established use. It appears mainly as a trace marker of aged cannabis and as a research/reference compound of scientific curiosity. It is not an established ingredient or therapeutic, and any wellness positioning is unsupported (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
No verified effects are known. Our registry holds no confirmed pharmacology for CBL — no receptor, enzyme, or clinical data. Older folklore about "aged cannabis" sedation is sometimes linked to CBL, but this is unproven (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
No. There are no known human studies of CBL, and essentially no preclinical pharmacology either. It is one of the most under-researched cannabinoids. That absence is exactly why every effect statement here stays catalogue in progress rather than a claim.
CBL's safety is not established — there are no human safety studies, no defined dose, and no long-term data. "Not known to be intoxicating" is not the same as "proven safe." Consult a qualified professional before use (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
CBL's side-effect profile is unknown; no controlled studies document any adverse effects, and absence of data isn't evidence of safety. Products may also contain other cannabinoids or contaminants. Stop use and seek advice if you feel unwell (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
No safe or effective CBL dose has been established, so "too much" can't be defined from evidence, and no overdose data exist. As with any unstudied compound, more is not better. This is not dosing or medical advice. Catalogue in progress.
Nobody knows, because no interaction study of CBL exists in people or in the laboratory — the question is untested rather than answered. Cannabinoids as a class can affect drug-metabolising enzymes, so an interaction is plausible for CBL but entirely unverified, and plausible is not demonstrated. If you take any medication, consult a clinician or pharmacist before use. Catalogue in progress. (Not medical advice.)
Probably not. Standard drug tests screen for THC's metabolite (THC-COOH), not CBL, and CBL is neither THC nor a precursor of it, so direct interference is unlikely. The real variable is any trace THC in a hemp or aged-cannabis product. CBL-specific cross-reactivity data are essentially nonexistent, so a current third-party certificate of analysis is the only way to see what a product actually contains.
CBL is not THC — it forms from CBC, not from THC, and pure CBL contains no THC. However, products containing CBL (often aged or full-spectrum material) may carry trace Δ⁹-THC, so check the certificate of analysis (COA) for actual THC content.
CBL is not what drug tests detect, so it is unlikely to be the direct cause of a failure. The real risk is trace THC in the product. If you are drug-tested, choose products with a COA showing non-detectable THC.
CBL is rarely sold on its own; it usually appears as a trace component of aged or full-spectrum extracts, or as a reference isolate. Formats would mirror other cannabinoids (oil, capsule), but CBL has no studied route, dose, or effect (not medical advice).
Dedicated CBL products barely exist. It shows up mainly as a minor constituent in broad/full-spectrum hemp extracts and as an analytical reference standard for labs. Because content is tiny and variable, any product claim should be backed by a third-party certificate of analysis (COA).
There is no established dose for CBL. No studies define a safe or effective amount, so CBG Atlas gives no dosing guidance. Any label amount reflects manufacturer choice, not evidence. Consult a qualified professional (not medical or dosing advice). Catalogue in progress.
Unknown for CBL — its onset and duration have never been studied, and it has no verified effect to time in the first place. No CBL pharmacokinetic data exist, so any timing claim would be pure speculation (not medical advice). Catalogue in progress.
CBC is the parent; CBL is what CBC slowly becomes when exposed to light or heat (a photochemical ring-closing reaction). So CBL is a degradation product of CBC, not a sibling made independently. Both are non-intoxicating, but CBC has more research than CBL.
CBL and CBN are both ageing products, but from different parents: CBL forms from CBC under light, while CBN forms from THC by oxidation. Both accumulate in old cannabis, and both are non-intoxicating in the ordinary sense. The evidence files diverge sharply, though — CBN has in-vitro data and three human sleep trials behind it, while CBL has essentially no verified pharmacology at all. Catalogue in progress for CBL.
CBL and CBD are unrelated in both structure and evidence. CBD is a widely studied cannabinoid with an approved prescription medicine for specific rare seizure disorders; CBL is a rare CBC breakdown product with essentially no research behind it. Comparing their effects is not possible on verified evidence, because CBL is a near-blank slate — untested rather than tested and found wanting. Catalogue in progress.
Not in any way we can verify. Structurally CBL is its own tetracyclic class, formed from CBC; functionally we cannot say it resembles any cannabinoid's effects, because CBL's pharmacology is unstudied. It is most comparable to CBN only in that both are aging/degradation products — not in verified activity.
CBL's molecular formula is C21H30O2 (molecular weight ≈ 314.46 g/mol), CAS 21366-63-2, PubChem CID 30607. Structurally, CBL is tetracyclic — formed by an intramolecular ring closure of CBC under light — which makes it an isomer of CBC rather than a new skeleton. This chemical identity is Established even though CBL's pharmacology is not, and that pharmacology stays catalogue in progress.
CBL forms by photocyclization: ultraviolet light drives a [2+2] cycloaddition in CBC, closing a new ring to create CBL. Heat and time contribute too. In the lab it can be made by deliberately irradiating CBC; in nature it accumulates as cannabis ages.
Yes. CBL is a degradation (breakdown) product of CBC, produced by light and heat over time rather than by a plant enzyme. This is the defining fact about CBL's origin — analogous to how CBN forms as THC ages and oxidizes.
Yes — CBLA (cannabicyclolic acid) is described as the corresponding acid, itself a photochemical product of CBCA (CBC's acid). Like CBL, CBLA is extremely rare and essentially unstudied; verified pharmacology for it does not exist in our registry. Catalogue in progress.
CBL is very hard to find as a consumer product; it appears mainly as an analytical reference standard from lab suppliers, or as a trace component of aged/full-spectrum extracts. CBG Atlas endorses no specific vendor — insist on third-party lab results if buying.
CBL only forms slowly from CBC via light and heat, and CBC is itself a relatively minor cannabinoid, so CBL is present in tiny trace amounts (typically well under 0.1%). Isolating meaningful quantities is difficult and low-yield, making standalone CBL exceptionally scarce.
Because CBL is so rare and unstudied, a certificate of analysis (COA) is especially important. Ask for accredited third-party results confirming any claimed CBL content, showing the THC level, and screening for contaminants. Be wary of products claiming high CBL — verify it.
Honestly, there is little basis on which to recommend CBL. It has no established benefit and essentially no research of any kind, so any value is speculative rather than evidence-based — untested, not tested-and-rejected. Catalogue in progress. If you are curious anyway, treat CBL as experimental, insist on current lab testing, and keep expectations minimal. (Not medical advice.)
Look for a third-party COA that actually verifies CBL content (many claims are unverified), compliant/declared THC, contaminant screening, and honest labeling. Be especially skeptical of any effect or "sedation" claims — none are verified for CBL (not medical advice). Testing and transparency matter most.
CBG Atlas is a scientific reference. Nothing here diagnoses, treats, cures or prevents any disease. Statements about effects, benefits or uses reflect claims made by third parties — CBG Atlas does not make, adopt or affirm them. Legal status is scoped to jurisdiction, product class and date, and moves; verify against the official source. See how we grade and the safety page. Peregrine Biopharma funds the platform and holds no editorial authority.