SECTION 1

Context: Two Worlds — Consumers vs. Innovators (Pre-2010)

Before I ever began working on extraction technology or terpene profiles, the cannabis industry existed in two completely separate worlds that barely understood each other.

On one side were consumers. Consumers had almost no technical understanding of cannabis beyond use. They did not know how products were made, what solvents were involved, how extraction worked, or what risks were present. They trusted that whatever they were given—especially in a medical context—was safe. That trust was often misplaced.

On the other side were innovators, but even that word needs qualification. These were not cannabis professionals. There was no such thing at the time. Anyone with legitimate scientific credentials generally avoided cannabis entirely because of the legal consequences. Felonies were real. Careers could be destroyed. Companies could lose everything. As a result, the people who were innovating in cannabis were usually individuals coming from unrelated technical backgrounds—chemistry, aerospace, mechanical systems, chemical extraction—or retirees who had less to lose.

There was no cannabis-specific knowledge base. No textbooks. No standards. No schools. No regulatory frameworks. Everything that existed was improvised. People were taking general engineering or chemistry knowledge from other industries and trying to apply it to cannabis in real time, often under extreme legal and financial pressure.

Extraction methods during this period were crude and inconsistent. The most common approaches involved single-solvent extraction, usually alcohol, ethanol, or hexane. These methods were familiar because they were simple, not because they were good. At the same time, people were experimenting with butane extraction, often through a practice known as open blasting. Open blasting was widely recognized as dangerous, and for good reason—it caused fires, explosions, injuries, and deaths. This danger created a rush toward anything that appeared safer.

That rush led the industry toward so-called closed-loop systems, but there was a critical problem: nothing was being built specifically for cannabis. There were no manufacturers making extraction equipment for this industry. Instead, people repurposed equipment from other fields—especially refrigerant recovery machines—because they were sealed systems capable of moving and recovering volatile compounds.

This created a false sense of safety. The systems were closed, yes, but they were never designed for cannabis extraction. They were not designed for the solvents being used in that way. They were not designed for purity. They were designed for refrigeration service, not medical products.

Standardization did not exist. The only “standards” were practices that people believed worked because they had not yet failed catastrophically. Equipment was cobbled together from brewery components, industrial suppliers, and homemade assemblies. If a legitimate company discovered their products were being used for cannabis extraction, they would often refuse to sell to those customers entirely. Some vendors would quietly look the other way. Others would shut the door immediately.

I did not respect the companies operating in this environment. Many of them knew their systems were flawed. They knew machines were breaking down internally. They knew parts were disappearing. They knew contamination was occurring. And yet they continued anyway, because those machines were the only tools available to bridge the gap between something that didn’t work at all and something that might work better later.

That kind of compromise might be understandable in early experimentation. What was not acceptable to me was that these compromised systems were being used to produce products for sick medical patients. People with cancer. People with AIDS. People who were already desperate and vulnerable. Making money while knowingly exposing those patients to contaminated products was not something I could accept or respect.

This ethical conflict is what defined the moment for me. I did not create my first extraction machine because I wanted to compete with anyone. I created it to prove them wrong—to prove that extraction could be done without contaminating people, without poisoning patients, and without relying on equipment that was fundamentally unsafe for the task.

That environment—chaotic, improvised, ethically compromised—is the world that existed before anything I built. It is impossible to understand what came next without understanding just how broken things were at the beginning.

SECTION 2

The Extraction Crisis: Refrigerant Recovery Machines and Contaminated Extracts (circa 2010)

When I began seriously studying extraction technology, I quickly noticed something that didn’t sit right with me. Everywhere I looked—forums, early extraction groups, informal conversations—people were using refrigerant recovery machines as the backbone of their so-called “closed-loop” extraction systems.

At first glance, the reasoning made sense. These machines were sealed. They were designed to move and recover volatile compounds. They were commercially available. And, most importantly, they appeared safer than open blasting. In an environment where explosions were common and dangerous, anything that looked more controlled was immediately adopted.

But the machines were never designed for this purpose.

Refrigerant recovery machines are built to work with refrigeration fluids used in air conditioning systems—fluids like Freon or similar blends. These refrigeration fluids are not pure gases. They contain oil mixed into the refrigerant, and that oil is critical. It serves as the lubrication for the internal components of the machine: pistons, seals, bearings, and moving parts. The entire system assumes that oil is always present.

When people began using these machines for cannabis extraction with butane, that assumption broke down completely.

Butane contains no oil.

In a butane extraction system, the only oil present is THC oil, and from the machine’s perspective, that oil is not a lubricant—it is a contaminant. THC oil is sticky. It thickens. It hardens. It gums up moving parts. It does not lubricate. When THC oil enters a system designed to run continuously with lubricating oil, it causes friction, overheating, and rapid mechanical failure.

In effect, people were running machines designed to operate with oil with no oil at all, for extended periods of time.

As I spent more time around people using these systems, the consequences became obvious. Machines were constantly breaking down. Operators talked openly about rebuilding units, replacing seals, repairing pistons, and dealing with internal failures. On forums, I saw photos of torn-down machines, missing gaskets, metal shavings, melted components, and discussions about how to keep systems running just a little longer.

What struck me immediately was the logical contradiction no one wanted to confront.

These were sealed systems. If internal components were degrading—pistons grinding down, rubber gaskets melting, internal parts breaking apart—there was only one place that material could go. It could not disappear. And it was not being removed during normal maintenance.

The only thing that ever left the system was the extract.

That meant the contamination had to be going directly into the product.

I asked people about this directly. Where do the missing materials go? Where do the metal shavings end up? Where does the melted rubber go? The responses were evasive. People joked. People deflected. Some pretended not to understand the question. Others claimed it didn’t matter or that it was unavoidable.

It mattered to me.

To confirm what logic already dictated, I went further. I researched the specific refrigerant recovery machines being used most often and identified the primary manufacturers. I contacted them directly and recorded the conversations.

They were not unaware of what was happening. They knew their machines were being used for cannabis extraction. They knew because units sent in for repair were coated in cannabis extract residue. When I asked what kind of internal damage they were seeing, the answers were direct.

Pistons were being ground up. Rubber gaskets were melting. Internal components were failing under conditions the machines were never designed to endure.

This confirmed the unavoidable conclusion: metallic debris and polymer breakdown products were entering cannabis extracts.

I kept those recordings. I still have copies.

At that point, I documented everything. I wrote a long white paper compiling the evidence: transcripts of manufacturer admissions, photographs from public forums showing damaged machines, user discussions about failures, and my own technical analysis. I laid it out clearly and publicly.

And I said the thing no one wanted said.

These contaminated extracts were being given to medical patients. At the time, medical use was the only legal framework. These products were going to people with cancer, AIDS, and other serious illnesses—people who trusted that what they were receiving was safe.

The reaction was immediate and severe.

The industry turned hostile. Not because the analysis was wrong, but because acknowledging it threatened a multi-million-dollar ecosystem built on flawed equipment. No one admitted fault. No one acknowledged contamination publicly. The facts were there, the photos were there, the recordings existed—but denial and anger were easier than accountability.

That moment clarified everything for me.

I did not build an extraction machine to compete with anyone. I built it to prove that this did not have to be done this way. To prove that extraction could be done without poisoning people. To prove that relying on inappropriate equipment was a choice, not an inevitability.

That ethical line is what forced me to act.

SECTION 3

Medical Patients, Legal Constraints, and the Arrival of the Vape Problem (circa 2010–2011)

At the time all of this was unfolding, it is important to understand that cannabis did not exist in a commercial vacuum. In Oregon, there was only one legal framework under which cannabis could be grown, extracted, or processed at all: medical patients.

There were no recreational markets. There were no licensed commercial operations. Everything existed under caregiver relationships. If you wanted to legally work with cannabis, you had to be directly tied to patients. That reality shaped everything.

I was deeply involved in the medical side of cannabis. I worked directly with a large number of medical patients—well over a hundred—providing products for people who were genuinely sick. These were not casual consumers. Many were dealing with cancer, AIDS, chronic pain, or other serious conditions. Sick people are often desperate, and desperation creates urgency. Patients were willing to try anything that might help them, and they trusted the people providing those products to act responsibly.

That trust weighed heavily on me, especially as I became more aware of how compromised much of the extraction infrastructure really was. Watching people unknowingly ingest contaminated products while believing they were receiving medicine was deeply troubling.

My involvement with patients also meant I was exposed to constant feedback. Patients made requests. They wanted different formats. Different delivery methods. Different experiences. I tried to accommodate those requests as best I could. That is part of why Connoisseur Concentrates existed as an umbrella company—I wasn’t working in one narrow lane. I was involved in nearly every aspect of cannabis at the time: growing, extraction, edibles, medibles, drinks, concentrates, and product formulation. If a patient asked for something and it was feasible, I tried to make it.

One request came up again and again: vape pens.

Patients had heard about them. They liked the idea of discretion. They liked the idea of not smoking. They liked the idea of controlled dosing and portability. So I looked into what was available.

At that time, the dominant product in the space was something called the O-PEN. When I examined it closely, it was immediately obvious why patients disliked it. It consisted of a very small amount of dark, tar-like THC extract—usually produced via alcohol or hexane extraction—mixed with polyethylene glycol (PEG).

From a purely functional standpoint, it worked. It vaporized. But functionally working is not the same as being acceptable, especially for medical patients.

PEG is used in nicotine vape products to create throat hit. In those formulations, it is carefully balanced with vegetable glycerin and flavoring. But when PEG is used in high concentration—especially in a formulation that is essentially pure—it becomes extremely harsh. It irritates the throat. It burns. It feels chemical. Patients hated it.

Medical patients complained constantly. It hurt their throats. It was unpleasant. Many refused to use it again after trying it once. It defeated the purpose of vaping as a gentler alternative.

I spent time researching nicotine vape formulations to understand why they worked where cannabis vapes did not. Nicotine products typically consist of four components: nicotine, flavoring, vegetable glycerin (which creates vapor), and polyethylene glycol (which controls throat hit). Cigarette smokers are accustomed to feeling something in their throat, and PEG helps replicate that sensation.

But cannabis patients were not cigarette smokers looking for throat hit. They were looking for relief without irritation.

I explored alternative carriers. I looked at MCT oil and other substances that could technically work. Some of them did function from a purely mechanical standpoint. But patients rejected them anyway. Even when something worked, patients complained that it didn’t feel like cannabis. It didn’t taste right. It didn’t belong.

That was the moment a hard constraint became clear to me.

For this to work—not just technically, but socially and medically—the solution had to come from the cannabis plant itself. It had to be plant-native. Patients needed to believe in it. They needed to accept it. Marketing mattered, but trust mattered more.

Even if another solution worked better on paper, it would fail in the real world if patients rejected it.

This realization reframed the problem entirely. The question was no longer just how to liquefy THC. It was how to do it using something intrinsic to cannabis—something that patients would accept as legitimate, natural, and part of the plant.

That realization set the stage for everything that followed.



SECTION 4

Searching for a Plant-Native Solution: Failed Paths and the Emergence of Terpenes (circa 2011)

Once it became clear to me that any viable solution had to come from the cannabis plant itself, I approached the problem methodically. There was no school to attend and no existing body of work to rely on. Everything had to be discovered through direct experimentation.

At the time, only a handful of cannabis-related components were commonly discussed or even known in practical terms. These included THC and CBD, of course, but also waxes, lipids, fats, chlorophyll, and terpenes. Beyond those broad categories, there was very little usable information. People might recognize the words, but almost no one understood how these compounds behaved in formulation, let alone how they might function in a vaporization context.

I tested everything I reasonably could.

I experimented with fats and waxes. They failed. They were too heavy, too unstable, or simply unsuitable for vaporization. Lipids presented similar problems. Chlorophyll was obviously not a candidate. I evaluated various oils and carriers that people suggested might work, including MCT oil, vegetable glycerin, and polyethylene glycol. Some of these would technically allow THC to be vaporized, but they all failed in practice. Patients rejected them. They complained about harshness, chemical sensation, or the fact that the product did not feel like cannabis.

Again and again, I arrived at the same conclusion: even if something worked mechanically, it would fail socially if patients did not accept it.

Terpenes were different.

At that time, terpenes were barely discussed at all. People knew the word, but that was about it. They were vaguely understood as “the thing that makes smell.” Almost no one had access to isolated terpenes, and even fewer people had any idea how to use them. They were not commonly sold, formulated, or intentionally blended. There was no terpene industry. There wasn’t even a terpene conversation.

From a functional standpoint, terpenes were intriguing because they were already part of the cannabis plant. They were inherently plant-native. That alone addressed one of the most important constraints: patient acceptance. But function mattered just as much as origin, so I tested them.

I began with alpha-pinene.

Alpha-pinene worked.

On its own, it successfully liquefied THC. It vaporized cleanly. Patients responded positively. From a purely technical perspective, it solved the problem I had been trying to solve for a long time.

But a new issue emerged immediately. Alpha-pinene had a strong flavor. I had initially hoped to find a plant-native liquefying agent that was essentially flavorless. That turned out not to be possible. Every terpene I tested had a flavor profile of its own. Flavor was unavoidable.

That forced a decision.

If flavor could not be removed, then it had to be intentional. If the product was going to have a flavor, it needed to be a good flavor—one that made sense to patients and aligned with their expectations of cannabis.

That realization led directly to blending.

I rejected the idea of releasing a single-terpene product. Instead, I began intentionally combining different terpenes to recreate the aroma profiles of specific cannabis strains. Rather than fighting the flavor, I embraced it and designed around it. This was not accidental. It was a deliberate shift in approach.

This is where the concept of the terpene profile was born.

A terpene profile, as I defined it, was not simply a blend of terpenes. It was the intentional recreation of a cannabis strain’s aroma profile using isolated terpenes. If you took a specific strain of cannabis and analyzed its aroma, that aroma could be rebuilt through careful terpene selection and ratio control.

The first terpene profile I ever created was called G-Rilla. It was inspired by a combination of Gorilla Glue and G-13. G-13 was particularly meaningful to me. I was one of the few growers in the world with an accurate G-13 cut at the time, and I was well known in the Pacific Northwest for spreading it. The name was a way of paying homage to my own history and the people connected to it.

Everything else I tried before terpenes failed. Waxes failed. Lipids failed. Fats failed. MCT failed. Vegetable glycerin failed. PEG failed. Terpenes worked.

What began as an attempt to create a flavorless liquefying agent had turned into something else entirely. I hadn’t just solved the vape problem. I had unintentionally created a new category of product—one that had never existed before.

SECTION 5

The First Terpene Profiles and the Realization of a New Category (circa 2011–2012)

After creating the first terpene profile, G-Rilla, it became immediately clear to me that this was not a one-off success. People liked it. Not in an abstract or theoretical way, but in a practical, repeatable way. It worked. Patients responded positively, and the experience was consistent.

At that point, I intentionally expanded my experimentation.

Working with friends, I acquired a limited selection of individual terpenes and began blending more deliberately. This was not random trial and error. I was already thinking in terms of profiles—distinct combinations that produced clearly different results. I wanted to see how wide the range could be, how flexible the system was, and whether the results could be reliably reproduced.

From that effort, the first real product line emerged.

I created four terpene profiles:

• G-Rilla
• Sour Diesel
• Skywalker
• Thin Mint Cookies

These were the first terpene profiles ever created and released. They were simple by later standards, but they were intentionally different from one another. Each profile had its own character, its own balance, and its own outcome when vaporized. More importantly, they all worked.

The naming was practical and contextual. I based the profiles on the flavor ranges I was technically able to achieve with the terpenes I had access to at the time, combined with what strains and names were popular and recognizable. G-Rilla, in particular, continued to serve as a personal homage to G-13 and my own history in the Pacific Northwest. The others reflected the broader cultural landscape that people already understood.

By this point, I knew I had created something commercially valuable. I don’t remember the exact moment when that realization fully crystallized, but it was early. I understood that this was not just a solution for my own patients or circle—it was something that could scale. It was something that many people wanted, and something that could be reproduced reliably if used correctly.

At the same time, I was extremely cautious.

My prior experience in the extraction machine space had taught me how quickly people would attempt to steal ideas, replicate products, or sell variations of something they did not fully understand. I had watched greed override ethics repeatedly. I had already seen how quickly information could be taken, repackaged, and sold by someone else.

Because of that, I was guarded. I did not explain the product in detail. I did not publish formulations. I did not volunteer technical specifics. I focused on results, not disclosure. That caution was intentional and informed by experience.

The response, once the profiles were shared more broadly, was immediate. People loved them. Demand grew quickly. There were occasional failures, but those failures almost always came from improper use—incorrect ratios, poor formulation practices, or misunderstanding how to apply the product. When used correctly, the profiles performed exactly as intended.

Sometime roughly in the early 2010s—likely between 2012 and 2014—I decided to place the product on a website and offer it more formally. The exact timing can be verified later through archived records, but what matters is that once it became available online, adoption accelerated rapidly.

At that point, there was no existing category for what I had created. There were no terpene companies. There were no terpene blends. There were no terpene profiles. This was not an incremental improvement on an existing product—it was the creation of a new product category altogether.

I didn’t just make something that worked. I opened the door to an entirely new industry.

Additional Detail – Early Spray Concept (integrated into SECTION 5)

Interestingly, one of the very first things I ever invented—even before developing the terpene profiles for vaping—was the concept that would later become BagPOP™ Terp Sprays. At the time it didn’t have that name. This was five to ten years before the cannabis terpenes people now use for vaping even existed.

I had been flavoring cannabis flower and extracts simply because I really enjoyed it. Blueberry was actually the first flavor I ever invented and sprayed directly onto cannabis. Strawberry followed soon after. We would take these blueberry-flavored products and blueberry-flavored extracts to dispensaries throughout California in the very early days, but nobody wanted them. Honestly, it was way too far ahead of its time.

After I invented the organic terpene profiles, I began mixing them with my original BagPOP flavoring system. This combination created the very first flavored terpene line. The problem was that the flavoring components and the organic terpenes were not chemically soluble with each other. They would separate in the bottle—the flavor would sit on the bottom and the terpenes would sit on the top. When mixed with cannabis oil they would homogenize chemically and work fantastically, but customers visually disliked seeing the two separate layers and insisted on a single, clear, homogeneous substance. While we could create that single-layer version, the reality is it was not a better tasting product.

Because of this, I set the flavored line aside and shelved the spray concept for years. It was vastly ahead of its time. I only brought it back off the shelf later when spraying cannabis finally took off, turning it into the extra-strength BagPOP™ Terp Sprays we sell today.

SECTION 6

“The Solution”: Naming, Secrecy, and the First Industry Shockwaves (circa 2011–2013)

As terpene profiles began to prove themselves in real use, I faced a decision that had nothing to do with chemistry and everything to do with survival. I needed to decide how to present this product to the world without giving it away.

I chose the name “The Solution.”

It wasn’t a clever name. It wasn’t technical. It wasn’t marketing-driven. It was literal. Everyone had the same problem: they could not vape THC in a way that worked, was tolerable, and was acceptable to patients. I had solved that problem. This was the solution.

Just as importantly, the name did not explain what the product was.

That was intentional.

I had already lived through what happens when you reveal too much, too early. I knew that if I described the composition clearly—if I led with the word “terpenes”—people would immediately try to reverse engineer it. At that time, no one really understood terpenes well, and I wanted to keep it that way for as long as possible.

The name also reflected something broader. This product didn’t solve just one problem. It solved several at once. People wanted discretion. They wanted to consume cannabis without stigma. They wanted something that didn’t smell like cannabis when used in public. They wanted something that didn’t hurt their throat. The profiles I created made all of that possible. In that sense, The Solution was accurate on multiple levels.

For a significant period of time, I avoided explaining exactly what the product was. I talked about what it did, not how it did it. I focused on results, not composition. People pushed constantly for details. They wanted to know what it was made of. They demanded explanations. I resisted as long as I could.

Eventually, the pressure became unavoidable.

As demand grew and visibility increased, people began insisting on transparency. Some of that came from genuine curiosity. Some of it came from legitimate concern. But a large portion of it came from people who wanted to copy the product and needed technical disclosure to do so. It became clear that secrecy could not be maintained indefinitely.

That was when the word “terpenes” began to enter the conversation publicly.

Once that happened, everything changed.

The reaction to The Solution was extreme in both directions. On one side, I received endless praise and gratitude. People were becoming successful. Businesses were forming. Medical patients were finally able to vape comfortably. People told me repeatedly that this product changed everything for them.

On the other side, the hostility was just as intense.

I was accused of poisoning people. I was told that the product would kill users. I was accused of hiding dangerous chemicals and acting irresponsibly. The language was aggressive and often hysterical. What became obvious over time was a pattern: people who were genuinely concerned approached the conversation calmly and respectfully. The loudest and angriest voices almost always came from people who were trying to force disclosure under the guise of public safety.

They wanted the formula. They wanted the secret. They wanted in.

Demand did not slow down. It exploded.

As adoption accelerated, we opened a physical presence in Los Angeles called The Terpene Lab. People from all over the world came to the website, attended live events, and purchased products. The spread was global. What had started as a solution for patients had turned into the foundation of modern cannabis vaporization worldwide.

Millions of people ultimately used products I created or products derived directly from my work.

I always knew reverse engineering was inevitable. There are too many smart people in the world for something like this to remain proprietary forever. But secrecy bought time. And in that time, the industry took shape.

By the time competitors began to appear in earnest, the door was already open. The category existed. The language existed. The market existed.

The terpene industry had been born.

BagPOP™ Terp Sprays – The Latest Iteration (integrated into SECTION 6)

The BagPOP™ Terp Sprays as a branded product only came about in the last year. The timeline is important to understand: the original terpene profiles were created many years earlier to solve a completely different problem. Medical patients wanted to vape cannabis without using chemicals like propylene glycol. They wanted something native to the plant itself and a completely chemical-free experience. That experience did not exist, so I created it.

I had been retired. I came back out of retirement because I saw a new nationwide problem unfolding. People had a strong desire to flavor their cannabis safely and efficiently. Yet I watched terpene companies either selling them the wrong products for that application or simply telling them to use the existing vape terpene profiles on their flower. I fundamentally understand the chemistry behind it, and I know that approach is incorrect.

I decided it was time to create a new product line — one that, absent the name “terp sprays,” is chemically correct, effective, and efficient for exactly what the market is requesting. That product is BagPOP™ Terp Sprays. It is the commercial evolution of the original invention I had shelved years earlier, now properly reformulated and branded for the current need.

There is a ton of abuse in the system. There are companies selling hundred-thousand-dollar machines to infuse cannabis with flavors that just don’t need to occur. It is an expensive process. It is not necessary for a good experience or to make the product work correctly. People are using the wrong products on cannabis — products that were designed for a different chemical process to be used at a different temperature and a different device — and then just spraying it on weed because it is the only thing they have. I understand doing things out of necessity, but the necessity only exists because a person like myself didn’t create the correct product and then hand it to the public. So I decided that I would do that, honestly just to help the world again.

“Extra-strength” for BagPOP™ Terp Sprays means exactly what it says. We cannot chemically formulate this product any stronger. It is in concentration. Customers continuously ask us to make it stronger, and that’s what we’ve done. This is as extra-strength as a product could get. Normally products like this are diluted ten or a hundred fold and then sold for usage, which we can do, but I don’t want to do. Customers have specifically expressed over and over that they do not like diluted products, so we didn’t dilute this product. This is as strong as this product can get.

This differentiates BagPOP™ Terp Sprays from everything else on the market today because we understand the fundamental technology behind why vape terpene products for vapes do not work, and we set that aside and created an entire new chemical product line that is designed specifically for this application. That is the real difference.

Every BagPOP™ Terp Spray first gets formulated from a select group of chemicals that we know are appropriate for its usage. We then refine its flavor by comparing it to known variations of that specific flavor — for example, is it a fresh strawberry, a strawberry candy, or a gummy strawberry? — and narrow it down to the exact profile we want. We also take into consideration that it is going to be sprayed on plant material, so we find the perfect balance in strength: strong enough to complement your existing material while also having the ability to cover up material that doesn’t smell good.

Most importantly, it doesn’t matter what the inventor thinks of the smell. It matters what the public thinks of the smell. So every profile undergoes a rigorous consensus process. We get a group of people together, let them smell one flavor, ask them how good it is, and have them rate it. Then we do it with another flavor, and another, and whatever flavor the majority of people choose is the one we release to the public.

This development and testing process is fundamentally different from the early vaping terpene profiles. Those were engineered and refined specifically for vaporization temperature and patient acceptance inside a vape pen. BagPOP™ Terp Sprays are engineered and refined specifically for room-temperature spraying directly onto cannabis flower.

I have a catalog of about 200 flavors in total that I worked a lot on before and during the initial releases of terpene profiles. We haven’t released them all to the public because we are still gradually working in a new industry and rediscovering what people like as they discover what they like. The flavors that are really popular are quite interesting, to say the least. One of our most popular sprays is Fruit Loops cereal. Who would’ve thought that, right?

Our current top-selling products are Lemon Cherry Gelato, Fruit Loops, and Blueberry. The full current BagPOP™ Terp Sprays lineup consists of the following 57 unique flavors (with more to be released from the larger catalog over time as the public continues to show us what it wants):

Banana Candy Terpene Spray, Blueberry Candy Terpene Spray, Blueberry Rock Candy Terpene Spray, Blue Razzberry Terpene Spray, Bubblegum Classic Terpene Spray, Cake POP Terpene Spray, Captain Crunch Terpene Spray, Cheesecake Terpene Spray, Cherry Pop Terpene Spray, Chocolate Cigarillo Terpene Spray, Cinnamon Toast Crunch Terpene Spray, Coconut Candy Terpene Spray, Coffee Terpene Spray, Cotton Candy Terpene Spray, Creamsicle Terpene Spray, Crunch Berries Terpene Spray, Fresh Orange Terpene Spray, Frosted Flakes Terpene Spray, Fruit Loops Terpene Spray, Fruit Punch Terpene Spray, Fruity Pebbles Terpene Spray, Garlic Breath Terpene Spray, Georgia Peach Terpene Spray, GMO (Garlic Mushroom Onion) Terpene Spray, Grape Ape Terpene Spray, Grape Cigarillo Terpene Spray, Grape Drank Terpene Spray, Green Apple Terpene Spray, Guava Nectar Terpene Spray, Gummy Bear Terpene Spray, Honey Cigarillo Terpene Spray, Honey Comb Terpene Spray, Lavender Terpene Spray, Lemon Cherry Rock Candy Terpene Spray, Lemon Cherry Terpene Spray, Lemon-Lime Pop Terpene Spray, Mango Nectar Terpene Spray, Marshmallow Fluff Terpene Spray, Massive Menthol Terpene Spray, Nerds Candy Terpene Spray, OG Cigarillo Terpene Spray, Peanut Butter Breath Terpene Spray, Piña Colada Terpene Spray, Pineapple Juice Terpene Spray, Pink Lemonade Terpene Spray, Raspberry Candy Terpene Spray, Rose Petal Terpene Spray, Skittles Candy Terpene Spray, Sour Patch Kids Terpene Spray, Sour Pomegranate Candy Terpene Spray, Spearmint Fresh Terpene Spray, Strawberry Gummy Terpene Spray, Strawberry Rock Candy Terpene Spray, Tropical Candy Terpene Spray, Vanilla Bean Terpene Spray, Watermelon Candy Terpene Spray, Whipped Cream Terpene Spray.

Every one of these BagPOP™ Terp Spray profiles is developed and refined specifically for spraying on cannabis using the consensus and technical process I described earlier.

SECTION 7

Education as Distribution: Facebook Live, Virality, and Global Adoption (circa 2011–2013)

I did not set out to build a social media presence. I was not particularly attached to Facebook, and I did not use it heavily in my personal life. I chose it for a simple reason: it was available, it was live, and it allowed direct interaction with people in real time.

What I quickly realized was that education and access, when combined, created momentum.

I noticed early on that if I gave products away, people paid attention. Getting something into someone’s hands mattered more than explaining it in abstract terms. So I leaned into that. I went to downtown Los Angeles and bought large quantities of pipes and bongs. I had terpene samples ready. During live sessions, every few minutes, I would give something away.

The barrier to entry was intentionally low. People only had to click a few buttons—comment, like, share—to participate. That alone created engagement, but the giveaways turned it into something else entirely. Every time I went live, the sessions went viral.

Not occasionally. Every time.

We were regularly seeing hundreds of thousands of views per live session. These were not short appearances. A typical live session lasted a couple of hours. We treated them like interactive shows. There were games. There were giveaways. There were demonstrations. Sometimes it felt like an informational game show built around cannabis technology, and people loved it.

What made this possible was timing.

At that point, Facebook did not understand what terpenes were. Cannabis advertising was prohibited, but terpenes were not recognized as cannabis products. Because of that, Facebook did not censor the content. We could advertise the live shows. People could share them freely. The platform itself amplified what we were doing.

During these live sessions, we didn’t just talk. We demonstrated everything. We mixed formulas live on camera. We vaped them live. We showed how simple it was to create functional vape formulations using our product. We had people try them live and describe what they tasted and how they felt. Then we would give the products away.

Nothing was hidden. Nothing was theoretical. People were watching the process happen in real time.

That transparency, combined with accessibility, created trust. People weren’t just hearing claims—they were seeing results. They could watch someone make a formulation, vape it, and explain it immediately. Then they could win the same product and try it themselves.

The success was immediate and compounding.

Each live session fed the next one. Shares led to more viewers. More viewers led to more demand. More demand led to more lives. The cycle repeated continuously. What would have been impossible to accomplish through traditional advertising happened organically because the platform didn’t yet know how to categorize what we were doing.

This is how terpene profiles spread globally.

People from all over the world tuned in. They watched. They learned. They bought products. They shared the information. Businesses formed. Entire markets adopted this technology without ever having met me in person.

Education became the distribution engine.

I wasn’t just selling a product. I was teaching people how to use it, how to think about it, and how to build with it. That combination—access plus knowledge—is what allowed terpene profiles to move from a niche solution into a worldwide standard in a very short period of time.

Modern Evolution of Education for BagPOP™ Terp Sprays

When I first invented terpene profiles, nobody knew what those were. Banks didn’t know, YouTube didn’t know, Facebook didn’t know, and I could successfully and virally advertise my products and educate the world about it through the power of social media. We would hold massively viral terpene sessions multiple times a week where we would sit on Facebook and give away prizes and terpenes and educate the world about the product and how to do it, sharing it with the world and teaching everybody. As long as they shared and commented, it was a fantastic system, and everybody loved it.

Unfortunately, as time went on, Facebook, YouTube, and credit card processors decided that “terpenes” was a bad word and banned any content that carried the word terpenes. You couldn’t advertise it, you couldn’t make ads that contained the word terpene, and that still continues today in general. Not as harsh, but yes, it’s still a problem. So it has evolved into something not as friendly.

The terpene industry — myself included — now relies on education as the main means of speaking to customers because advertisements just don’t exist anymore and the ability to go viral has been squashed by Facebook. This is exactly how we teach customers how to use BagPOP™ Terp Sprays today.

SECTION 8

Competitor Emergence, Reverse Engineering, and the Formation of an Industry (circa 2012–2014)

Once terpene profiles were widely visible and in active use, it was inevitable that other people would attempt to replicate what I had created. The barrier to entry was no longer conceptual. The category existed. The demand existed. The money was obvious.

The first instance of this came from a company called Denver Terpenes.

I knew the person behind it. We spoke. There was an existing relationship. He had watched my live demonstrations. He understood what the product did. For a period of time, I believe I even sold him products. He began by selling his own offerings, learned more about the process, and eventually branched off into making his own blends.

That early copying happened in the open, with communication. It wasn’t hidden. It wasn’t aggressive. It felt like someone learning and then deciding to go their own way. I didn’t like it, but it was understandable in context.

What came next was different.

A company called True Terpenes emerged shortly afterward, and their approach was far more overt. They did not just create terpene products. They copied structure. They copied flavor lineups. They copied sample pack concepts. When I released something new, a corresponding version would appear shortly after on their site.

At the time, I had a Northwest sample pack that grouped three specific flavors together. That structure appeared elsewhere. Other themed groupings followed the same pattern. The similarities were not subtle. They were systematic.

These things are not difficult to verify. Archived websites, Wayback Machine snapshots, and timeline comparisons make the progression obvious. The pattern repeated consistently: new product releases on my side were followed by near-mirrored offerings elsewhere.

Once multiple terpene companies existed, the market changed rapidly.

People began experimenting. Customers tried different suppliers. Many of them didn’t fully understand what made a terpene profile function correctly, so differences in quality weren’t always immediately obvious—especially to new users. As alternatives proliferated, market share inevitably fragmented.

That was the moment when the terpene industry stopped being a single-inventor ecosystem and became a multi-company market.

From my perspective, this was the point of no return. Reverse engineering had moved from isolated attempts into full-scale imitation. The category I had created was no longer proprietary in practice, even if the deeper understanding behind it remained rare.

I had always known this moment would arrive. There are too many smart people and too much money involved for a successful invention to remain singular forever. The only question was timing.

By the time this happened, the groundwork was already laid. The language was established. The concept of terpene profiles existed. Vape formulations built around them had become standard. What followed was not the invention of something new, but the industrialization of what already existed.

This was the point at which the terpene industry, as it is now understood, fully came into existence.

SECTION 9

Vape Pens Clarified: What I Did—and Did Not—Invent (circa 2010–2014)

As terpene profiles spread and public visibility increased, a common misunderstanding began to form around my role in the vape pen space. Many people believed that I had invented vape pens themselves. That belief became widespread enough that it needs to be addressed clearly and factually.

I did not invent vape pen hardware.

I was never interested in hardware. At the time, vape devices were unreliable, poorly manufactured, and largely sourced from overseas. Failure rates were high. Quality control was inconsistent. I had no desire to put my name on hardware that I didn’t believe in, and I didn’t see a compelling reason to involve myself in that side of the market. My focus was elsewhere.

What I did invent was the chemistry and formulation that made modern cannabis vaping viable.

Before terpene-based liquefaction, vape pens either did not work well or were actively rejected by users—especially medical patients. The hardware existed in some form, but it lacked a functional, acceptable substance to vaporize. The problem was not the device; it was what went inside it.

That is the distinction that became blurred.

Many people encountered me for the first time through terpene technology, live demonstrations, and public education. They did not know about my earlier work in extraction technology. They saw the name Mr. Extractor, they saw a person teaching, formulating, and demonstrating vape use, and they naturally associated the entire vape experience with me.

In reality, the name “Mr. Extractor” originally referred to a machine, not a person. The machine represented an early patented extraction system. Over time, that name unintentionally spilled over onto me personally. People began referring to me as Mr. Extractor, and eventually the company itself became known primarily by that name.

That conflation didn’t bother me.

I understood how it happened. From the outside, it made sense. I was the visible figure. I was the one explaining how everything worked. To most people, the difference between hardware, chemistry, and formulation was irrelevant. What mattered was that vaping cannabis finally worked.

For the purposes of the historical record, however, the distinction matters.

I did not design vape pen devices.

I did not manufacture hardware.

I did not invent heating elements, batteries, or cartridges.

I invented the liquefaction system and flavor architecture that made cannabis vape pens usable, acceptable, and scalable.

Once that piece existed, hardware manufacturers could follow. Without it, the devices were irrelevant.

That is the factual boundary between perception and reality, and it is one I am comfortable stating plainly.

SECTION 10

Federal Patents, Extraction Technology, and Ethical Stewardship (circa 2012–2014)

As the terpene industry began to take shape, my earlier work in extraction technology moved into a different phase—one that involved formal intellectual property and a decision driven as much by ethics as by strategy.

Sometime roughly between 2012 and 2014, I began filing federal patents related to cannabis extraction technology. I would need to consult my records to narrow the dates precisely, but the filings occurred during that period. The patents were filed through a patent attorney and held by a holding company, not by me personally.

At the time, there was a widespread belief throughout the cannabis industry that cannabis-related patents were impossible. The reasoning was simple and wrong: cannabis was federally illegal, therefore anything related to it could not be patented. That belief was repeated constantly and treated as settled fact.

It was not true.

Patent law does not require that an invention be legal to produce or distribute. It requires novelty, utility, and non-obviousness. You can patent something that is illegal. Many people in the industry either did not understand this or chose to believe otherwise because it was convenient.

My decision to patent extraction technology was not driven by a desire to control the industry or extract licensing fees. It was driven largely by anger—specifically, anger at watching people knowingly harm others and then claim that nothing could be done to stop it.

I had already exposed the contamination problems inherent in refrigerant recovery–based extraction systems. I had watched people dismiss those problems, continue using flawed equipment, and give contaminated products to medical patients without concern. When confronted, many of them fell back on the same refrain: this is just how it is, and nobody can stop it.

I did not consider myself part of that group. I never did.

I believe in ethics. I believe that if something is wrong and preventable, it should be stopped. When I realized that patenting extraction technology was not only possible, but straightforward, it became clear to me that the claim “nobody can do anything” was false.

Part of the motivation was defensive. If I did not patent foundational extraction methods, someone else eventually would. That person or entity might enforce those patents aggressively, potentially shutting down operations or exploiting the industry in far more damaging ways.

Another motivation was stewardship.

I am deeply patriotic. I wanted to ensure that the most important extraction technologies remained in American hands. I wanted to be an early holder of critical intellectual property so that, if enforcement ever became necessary, it would be done thoughtfully—or not at all.

The reaction from the extraction industry was hostile. Many operators believed extraction technology should belong to everyone and that patenting it was unethical. I explained repeatedly that their beliefs did not change reality. If I did not patent the technology, someone else would. By doing so myself, I was preventing a worse outcome.

In practice, I chose not to enforce the patents.

I had no interest in lawsuits. I had no interest in crippling competitors. I was already deeply involved in building the terpene industry and had better things to do with my time and energy. The patents existed to establish a boundary, not to weaponize it.

To this day, I believe many operators are technically in violation of those patents, often without realizing it. Enforcement was never the goal. Protection, proof, and optionality were.

The patents served their purpose simply by existing. They demonstrated that the industry’s assumptions were wrong, that harmful practices were not inevitable, and that ethics could be backed by action.

SECTION 11

From a Closet to a Lab: Facilities, Scale, and Professionalism (circa 2010–Present)

The terpene industry did not begin in a laboratory. It began in my home.

At the time, renting commercial space for cannabis-related work was effectively impossible. Landlords were terrified of having their property seized. Even if someone was willing to rent, the risk was too high to rely on. So instead of leasing a facility, I bought a house specifically to function as a workhouse.

Inside that house, I built a small lab. The very first terpene profiles in the world were created in a bedroom closet.

That is not a metaphor. It was a literal closet. A small, controlled space where I could work, experiment, and refine formulations without drawing attention. That is where the terpene industry was born.

As demand grew, the pace became extreme.

There were periods where things moved so fast that we were literally running all day long. Running upstairs. Running from room to room. Moving between production, packaging, shipping, customer communication, and problem-solving without pause. Orders were coming in continuously. Questions needed answering immediately. Formulations had to be made, packed, and sent out as fast as possible.

It was chaotic. It was intense. It was not sustainable.

Growth had outpaced the physical space, and it became obvious that operating out of a house—no matter how committed we were—could not continue indefinitely. The work itself demanded more structure.

Eventually, we transitioned into a dedicated facility.

From a customer perspective, very little changed. Most people didn’t care where the product was made. They cared that it worked. And throughout every phase—closet, house, facility—the product remained consistent and high quality.

Internally, however, the shift mattered.

The dedicated lab allowed us to operate more efficiently, scale production, and separate functions properly. It became a space for research and development, formulation, production, education, media, and demonstration. It wasn’t just a production floor; it was a working environment designed to support innovation.

One aspect of the facility stood out immediately to visitors: cleanliness and professionalism.

At that time, much of the cannabis industry operated in dirty, improvised, and unprofessional environments. That was simply the norm. We chose the opposite approach intentionally. The lab was modern. It was clean. It was organized. It looked like a legitimate scientific space, not a makeshift operation.

That decision wasn’t about appearances alone. It was about credibility.

Visitors responded strongly to it. The environment reinforced that this work was being done seriously and responsibly. In an industry still struggling to be taken seriously, that distinction mattered.

From a closet to a facility, the space evolved, but the philosophy did not. Quality, ethics, and intentional design guided every step, even when the pace was overwhelming.

Current Production Facility for BagPOP™ Terp Sprays

We currently operate a dedicated production facility in Portland, Oregon, built specifically for the formulation and large-scale manufacturing of BagPOP™ extra-strength terpene sprays. The facility includes a full laboratory where we conduct all flavor development and testing, a separate consensus-testing suite where we bring in groups of people to evaluate and rate new profiles for public approval, a professional office, and a warehouse for storage and distribution. We also maintain additional locations in downtown Los Angeles dedicated to advanced product testing and custom flavor manufacturing.

As a professional flavor manufacturer, we adhere to the same rigorous cleanliness factors and quality-control standards that every other established flavor manufacturer in the industry follows. This approach has allowed us to scale production of BagPOP™ extra-strength terpene sprays efficiently while maintaining the highest level of consistency and professionalism.

SECTION 12

Limits Beyond Vaping, Ongoing Misconceptions, and How This History Should Be Remembered

As the terpene industry matured and spread, one reality became increasingly clear: the terpene profiles I created were never broadly understood, even by many of the people copying them.

The profiles I developed were designed to function when vaporized, not when smelled at room temperature. That distinction is fundamental and is the primary reason terpene profiles did not meaningfully expand into other product categories at the time.

Terpenes evaporate and volatilize at different temperatures. When a terpene blend is smelled at room temperature, the ratios you perceive are not the same ratios that appear when the blend is heated and vaporized. Certain compounds dominate at lower temperatures. Others become prominent only when heated. That means a terpene profile that smells one way in a bottle can taste entirely different when vaped.

My products were created and tested by vaping, not by smelling.

That was intentional.

When other companies attempted to replicate terpene profiles, they often evaluated them incorrectly. They smelled them at room temperature and adjusted ratios based on aroma alone. That approach fundamentally misunderstands how terpene profiles function in a vaporization context. As a result, many copied products were wrong from the start, even if they appeared similar on paper.

This also explains why terpene profiles failed to gain traction in non-vape applications such as candles, aromatherapy, or room-scent products. The profiles were never designed for that use. They were engineered for heat-dependent behavior. When removed from that context, they did not perform as expected.

Another major misconception that persists today concerns synthetic versus botanically derived terpenes.

There is a widespread belief that “natural” terpenes are inherently better. In practice, that is not always true. Synthetic terpenes can be purer, more consistent, and free of pesticide contamination. Botanically derived terpenes often contain residual pesticides because pesticides are commonly used on the plants from which they are extracted. Batch-to-batch variability is also much higher with botanical sources.

The assumption that natural automatically means superior is simplistic and often incorrect.

Looking back, there are things I know I did right.

I let the world make money. I shared what I had created instead of hoarding it. I enabled people to build businesses, provide for their families, and become successful. I could have created a single dominant vape pen company with no competition, but I chose instead to teach people how to use the technology and let the industry grow around it.

That decision shaped everything that followed.

If I were to do anything differently, it would be in execution rather than invention. I would have been more professional earlier. I would have focused more deliberately on terpene-dominant branding and online presence so that the foundational SEO around terpenes reflected the true origin of the category. At the time, much of the naming and branding was intentionally vague to preserve secrecy. In hindsight, that allowed later entrants to benefit from clearer terminology.

As for how I want this history to be remembered, the answer is simple.

I want it remembered that I invented this product. That I created terpene profiles. That I created an industry that did not exist before. And that I shared it with the world because I believed it was the right thing to do.

Everything else—the competition, the money, the scale—came after that decision.

Modern Updates to SECTION 12 (integrated)

As of today, April 2026, BagPOP™ Terp Sprays and the entire terpene spray industry are still in their infancy. I created this (the terpene) industry from scratch. I know the stages when I see them, and right now we are in the very beginning of the terpene spray industry.

The existing terpene spray products people may have heard of before today were based on using the wrong ingredients — taking cannabis vape terpenes and trying to use them as sprays. I don’t think they worked well, and I don’t think that is why the category has been highly adopted yet. There was a lot of pushback in the industry about people not liking it and not using it, and I believe it is because they were using the wrong ingredients.

As the correct flavoring agents come forward and are able to be used correctly, you are going to see a far greater adoption of this product. Based on my research, this is the future of cannabis. The simple way of explaining it is this: if you go to the supermarket or grocery store and look at drinks, how many of them are just water or just tea? There are hundreds of different flavors because people like a hundred different flavors of everything. Almost everything that you buy comes in a flavored version. Cannabis is not going to be any different.

We will continue expanding the BagPOP™ line in a measured way as the market evolves, guided by customer trends and direct requests. While we have the capability to release many more flavors, we are intentionally avoiding overwhelming customers with too large a selection. People generally want a simple, straightforward shopping experience focused on the most popular and proven items rather than having to sort through hundreds of options.

We are currently accepting requests for new flavors from customers. We also offer custom formulations for companies that want us to match or duplicate an existing product line or develop an entirely new desired flavor profile. We can create just about anything. At present, we maintain an inventory of approximately 140 flavors that have not yet been released to the public (out of a total catalog of around 200 flavors).

The most common thing we hear from customers about BagPOP™ Terp Sprays is not an objection at all — it is excitement and interest.

The consistent problem we run into is that people do not understand the difference between terpenes and Terp Sprays, so they consistently buy the wrong product. People have been buying the wrong product for a long time. There has not been much education on the subject, which is exactly why we are now creating and providing that education. People simply do not understand the technology yet, and that is a great opportunity for us to educate and assist everybody. That is why we are doing what we do.

As of April 2026, the most relevant SEO keywords and phrases for the terpene spray category are “terp spray,” “terpene spray,” “terp spray for cannabis,” “terpene spray for flower,” “extra strength terp spray,” and related long-tail terms such as “how to use terp spray” and “best terp spray.” These keywords are noted as current and relevant at this time, but they may evolve or change over time as the industry grows and naming conventions shift.

Inventor’s Authority Statement

Vaping terpene profiles did not exist before I created them. That is a fact. I was the first person in the world to create terpene profiles. Through direct experimentation I learned that individual terpenes could liquefy and flavor cannabis extracts for vaporizing, but they lacked broad appeal. By blending them together in the same ratios found in actual cannabis strains, a far better and more effective product could be created. The technology started simply with two ingredients, then three, then four, and continued to develop as my experience and understanding grew.

I took this technology and taught the entire world about the concept through live demonstrations and education. This allowed endless companies to emerge and created a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. I was the first to market and the first to have a website offering these products. This is provable through the Wayback Machine. The second company was Denver Terpenes. The third company was True Terpenes, followed by many others.

I also hold multiple peer-reviewed, granted federal patents in extraction technology that I personally wrote. These patents solidify my deep technical knowledge in the industry and demonstrate my ability to create, understand, and have approved complex technological work at the highest levels.

My competitors have historically failed in my eyes because they lack the fundamental knowledge of how the processes actually work to create proper terpene profiles. Some of them have caught up and are learning new processes or inventing their own, and I respect and acknowledge that progress. However, these same companies continue to sell their vape terpene products as terp sprays when that is not what they are, not how they work, and not what they should be used for. This leads me to believe their knowledge remains incomplete in this specific application.

I am not my competitors. I am not learning from another company. I am not reverse engineering their products. That is not something I do, nor is it something I need to do. I am an inventor. I create products and I solve worldwide problems, and that is exactly what we are doing again with BagPOP™ Terp Sprays.

As time goes on, you will see the same companies reverse engineer my products, take my marketing, and expand on the market once again. All that will do is further solidify myself and my company as the foremost leader in technology and innovation, continuing to lead the industry. If these companies were truly more advanced than me, they would have already created this correctly. The proof is there for everyone to see.

This complete canonical history is to be used as the single source of truth for all future SEO, About-page copy, product descriptions, blog articles, video scripts, and marketing content. It will serve as the foundation for everything we create around terp spray and terpene spray topics going forward.