The Pressure Mounts: How Money Talks Louder Than Safety

BOGO Pressure Coupon given to The Mint customers on launch day, Friday, June 13, 2025.

When I wrapped up my initial investigation into Pressure Extracts, I thought I'd uncovered a simple case of a brand skirting regulations. What I've discovered since makes that look like child's play. This truly isn't just about one sketchy brand anymore - it's about an entire ecosystem built to prioritize profits over people, where even the supposed authorized agents are in on the game.

Remember how I said Arizona's cannabis market was starting to look like the Wild West? Well, saddle up, because we're about to ride deeper into territory where money talks, safety walks, and "knowing people" seemingly trumps regulation.

Launch day for Pressure arrived, and like any thorough investigator (or masochist, depending on your perspective), I headed back to The Mint. 

The morning of June 13th, I walked into their Scottsdale location. The manager on duty, who I had spoken with previously, assured me that yes, they now had valid Certificates of Analysis (COA) for Pressure products. Finally, some accountability, right?

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

I left with two units thanks to their BOGO launch special, plus a coupon for another free unit as one of the first 20 customers. BOGO all weekend, free units for early birds…it's almost like they felt the need to flood the market before anyone could properly examine what they were selling.

When I actually examined those test results, the hole got deeper. 

The COAs were performed by Apollo Labs in Scottsdale. A legitimate testing facility, but they were paid for by GTL LLC, which is literally a "Doing Business As" entity of The Mint themselves. Now, dispensaries paying for testing isn't inherently suspicious - they do have in-house brands. But when pressed, The Mint doesn't acknowledge Pressure as a white label brand or a vertically integrated affiliate at all. According to them, Pressure is simply paying for the ability to use their facilities and licenses. Sounds like the same thing to me, but I'm no expert. Just skeptical. At the end of the day, what I see is The Mint getting paid to manufacture Pressure products while also profiting off of selling them as well. If I’m incorrect on that, I would be more than open to having the reality be explained to me by a Mint corporate representative.

Both flavors I purchased (different strains, supposedly) had identical test results. Not similar, identical. Despite these being marketed as distinct strains entirely. And zero terpene testing, which would be the only difference between the strains if they were all the same actual source product.

Armed with this discovery, I marched back to The Mint, genuinely concerned about what I'd be inhaling.

First, I ran into the manager from earlier that morning. The one who assured me they had COAs, and I asked if she had actually read them. "Yes," she said confidently. Then I asked if she'd been trained on HOW to read a COA. "No," she admitted. When I explained that both COAs were identical, she seemed genuinely taken aback. Here was the acting manager, admitting she doesn't even know how to read the documents she's supposed to be educated on as a budtender in order to provide information to customers. Great start. 

When I got to the counter and explained that I didn't feel safe smoking these products, the budtender hit me with the corporate equivalent of a shrug: unless the units were defective, it's "buyer's remorse." But the real bombshell dropped when I mentioned the test results. The Inventory Control Manager immediately–and I mean immediately, like she'd rehearsed this–responded that they're using a "Mother Batch," which is allegedly "perfectly legal." I personally cannot find anything even officially defining what a “Mother Batch” is, let alone any rules regarding them.

She specifically stated that these products aren't "strain specific" and that's why they're allowed to use “mother batch” testing. 

According to her, the majority of what the dispensary sells falls under this category. I'm a bit confused on how they aren't "strain specific" when they're named after…strains. But I'll get back to that in a few moments. 

Her advice? "Do a bit more research." This from a dispensary that never once mentioned a majority of their variously branded "premium Live Resin vapes" were actually mostly distillate. Information that's literally their job to provide so customers can make informed decisions. It's honestly laughable.

When I pushed further, pointing out that tests were performed just DAYS before launch (they were tested on June 9, just four days prior) and questioning how products were distributed at events months earlier without COAs, the manager's response was depressingly revealing. She told me, "I'm sure that us having that product is the first actual test for them."

When I mentioned that the Errl Cup (and the state of Arizona) claims to require verification even just to distribute samples, and that was a big part of my problem, she actually laughed. Her exact words: "Depends on who you know. Big corporations, you know?"

It's like they straight up don't care that they're talking to a journalist who's told them they're actively investigating this brand. Or they think they'll never face repercussions for anything down the line if it turns out that it wasn't as up to code as they claimed.

During my heated exchange at The Mint (which assuredly got me silently banned from all locations, but I don't feel like testing the theory), the budtenders' condescension just continued to mount. When they dismissively told me to "stick with things I'm used to" based on my purchase history, I couldn't help but want to laugh. I was literally wearing my magazine badge–the same badge I've shown them before when discussing products–but apparently being a cannabis reviewer who's tested numerous legitimate brands doesn't qualify me to question their sketchy products.

They suggested I should "do more research and check the COAs before buying something." This coming from the same dispensary that didn't have COAs available during launch week, only got COAs for this product because they themselves paid for them, have access to their COAs buried on their website, and are selling 20 "different" products that are chemically identical. The irony was thicker than rosin.

The budtender followed up by telling me "a product only has to contain a certain percentage to be considered liquid diamonds/live resin" and suggested that "maybe I should report on that because she doesn't feel it should be that way." 

Funny how she feels so strongly about it, but never bothered to inform me before selling me products in the past. They also admitted: "Almost everything when it comes to Liquid Diamonds, is not going to be pure liquid diamonds. And especially devices like these, [disposable vapes] don't use pure liquid diamonds." In fact most of my research for this article concluded that the terms "liquid diamonds" and "live resin" are purely industry marketing labels. There aren't even regulations surrounding what “needs” to be in them, so where they pulled that information from I genuinely do not know.

Further, if a product doesn't explicitly state "100 percent Live Resin," terms like "Liquid Diamond Live Resin" almost always mean it's mostly distillate with just enough live resin mixed in to technically justify the name. It's perfectly legal, they assured me, because they're not lying. It does contain some live resin. By somebody’s standards, not anything established or defined. Somewhere mixed deep within the mystery distillate.

This is the cannabis equivalent of calling a drink "fruit juice" because it has 1 percent juice and 99 percent sugar water.

The whole saga took another turn when I pushed for a fair replacement. 

They initially offered only WTF distillate products as replacements. When I asked for Sluggers AIOs that had just launched that day at a comparable price point (actually $10 less) and also on BOGO, they refused, saying they could only do WTF since it's their house brand and Sluggers were "too new." This led to a confusing back-and-forth where they eventually offered me Canamo products (which cost MORE than what I was returning) but still wouldn't do Sluggers. When I pointed out this made no sense, they claimed, "These all go to accounting and anything that has a coupon goes back to our main branch so if I exchange Pressure for Sluggers it's all different in the system than if I exchange it for Canamo."

Whatever.

I expressed disappointment that customers need to know to watch for "100 percent Live Resin" labels to know they're not getting distillate, especially with Pressure specifically being heavily pushed by Mint, and being vertically integrated through their licensing. There's no denying that Pressure put zero spotlight on what was in their vapes, and are marketing them as much more than they actually are. The response? "Oh, no, no. This isn't our brand. They use our facility, but a lot of brands do, we have a very large facility."

When I pointed out that according to the COAs, GTL LLC (DBA The Mint) is the manufacturer, packager, and distributor, and it contains various other brands products labeled as Pressure which is literally both white labeling and vertical integration–by definition–she insisted, "Noooooooo, I think you're misunderstanding." I asked her to explain. Her response: "We have a couple of brands that use a bunch of our facilities, because we have a lot of little different facilities."

That's... still white labeling with vertical integration though; nothing she said actually explained how it wasn't. Just how other brands also did vertical integration.

When I pointed this out, her response was simply, "Honestly all similar brands in the industry are like that." When I said "Well, not all..." and continued explaining that I'm calling out a bullshit brand that a major dispensary is pushing, her final response was: "If that's how you see it, sorry you feel that way."

The cherry on top? Previously, I'd been told that The Mint is NOT allowed to accept returned products; that during a defective exchange, they're required to send you out with both the "returned" product and the replacement. But when they picked up one unit, they suddenly explained that "if they feel somebody is just trying to make a stink to get a lot of free product," they'll override that policy and take the defective product back. I held onto the other unit, and while they were clearly not impressed, they didn't try to force me to give it back. Even when I jokingly offered my free Pressure coupon for the "defective" one, she just said, "Well I can't give you a defective product that was returned, and you have all of this product now. You would have to leave and come back to use that." At which point I gave up, accepted I'd probably never be allowed in a Mint again, and walked out.

The one informative thing I was told is that if you go to mintdeals.com/coa/ they do in fact have all recorded COAs available…and then some. 

The deeper I dug, the worse it got. Let me break down what I found in those test results:

All 20 products were manufactured by GTL LLC (The Mint's DBA) on 06/06/2025, tested on 06/09/2025 by Apollo Labs in Scottsdale. Each individual "strain" shows different batch weights ranging from 13.87g to 28.14g. Every single product lists the exact same source materials: Distillate Batch 041525, Live Resin Batches LR010225, LR020525, LR030125, LR011525, and THCA Batch LD022525.

Despite claiming different effects–indica, sativa, hybrid–all 20 products show virtually identical minor cannabinoid ratios. Δ9-THC ranges from 25.94-26.85 percent, a mere 0.9 percent variance. THCA shows 67.89-70.40 percent, only 2.51 percent variance. The other cannabinoids were all grouped at under a 0.3 percent variance: 

Δ8-THC at 0.31-0.57 percent

THCV at 0.31-0.38 percent

CBN at 0.22-0.25 percent

CBGa at 0.48-0.61 percent

CBG at 0.46-0.55 percent

That doesn't look like natural variation to me. That seems like it's the same product with minor testing discrepancies. Pretty much the definition of “yeah you can copy off me but change it a little so the teacher doesn't notice”

Thanks to the detailed source batch information, it wasn't hard to trace back exactly how old this "fresh" this "premium" product really is:

The distillate comes from G6 OG, AK 1995, and Strawnana Gold harvested on 07/01/2024, with Bangers and MAC harvested 07/04/2024. These weren't extracted until 04/15/2025. That's nine and a half months of storage before extraction.

The live resin components come from multiple harvests from September through December 2024, with batches from 09/26/2024, 10/05/2024, 11/02/2024, and 12/02/2024. 

The THCA diamonds, harvested 01/14/2025 and extracted 02/25/2025, are the "freshest" component at only five months from harvest to sale.

Total timeline: 11+ months from the earliest harvest to consumer sale. Terpenes degrade significantly after three to four months and THC begins converting to CBN. By that guideline, this is ancient inventory being marketed as a premium product.

Something else immediately caught my eye when examining the physical product photos in the results.

Despite all 20 "strains" supposedly coming from the same "mother batch," the oils show noticeably different levels of cloudiness. Some are crystal clear, others are hazy. If these are truly from one batch with only terpenes added for flavoring, they should all have pretty identical clarity. Different levels of cloudiness suggests different processing, different source materials, or different storage conditions–none of which aligns with their "mother batch" narrative. It's physical evidence that contradicts their entire story, visible to anyone who bothers to actually look.

Fun fact: at the time of writing this if you searched for "invoice," it also pulled up files that I'm pretty sure weren't supposed to be publicly hosted for anybody to download. What these invoices revealed is illuminating–and deeply concerning from a privacy standpoint. We're talking about documents containing drivers' full names, dates of birth, license numbers, and even their vehicles' VIN numbers. This is information that absolutely should not be publicly accessible, yet there it was, downloadable by anyone who accessed this publicly available webpage.

As of publishing, this appears to have been fixed, but not before I had the chance to download the whole archive myself to comb through.

Beyond the shocking privacy violations, these documents reveal the massive scale of The Mint's operations. One invoice from Cardinal Square shows an order for over 525 pounds of bulk flower totaling $182,791. Another shows thousands of dollars in edibles moving between entities. These aren't small-time operations; we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing through these channels.

These invoices show The Mint's standard operating procedures for other brands as well. 

When DRIP Oils + Extracts ships to them, the invoice explicitly states "email COAs prior to delivery intake." That's right. Other brands are required to provide Certificates of Analysis BEFORE their products even enter the building. Yet somehow Pressure launched without any testing until The Mint paid for it themselves? One invoice from February 2025 shows a $15,960 order of concentrates requiring COAs before intake. Another details a $5,156 edibles transfer with full chain-of-custody documentation.

Every other brand follows protocol. Every other brand provides documentation. But Pressure? The Inventory Manager quite literally confirmed that there weren't tests performed before Mint paid for them. So there would have been no way to confirm the contents of the products they had been giving out at events for months leading up to this launch, that Mint happily was involved in. Until days before launch, and God knows how much money was spent on marketing.

What makes this even more concerning is my research into the actual dangers of long-term storage. According to peer-reviewed studies, standard cannabis testing only captures about 1 percent of microorganisms that actually grow. The 9-to-11 month storage timeline could breed "post-testing contamination" a phenomenon where products that pass initial testing develop dangerous levels of contamination during storage. Critical organisms that standard testing misses include Mucormycosis-causing fungi, Penicillium species that produce mycotoxins, Cryptosporidium parasites, and multidrug-resistant bacteria.

My research into vaping-specific dangers revealed terrifying realities about long-term storage of concentrates. Studies found that cannabis oil's acidic nature causes metal leaching from cartridge components during storage even without heating. Unregulated samples contained up to 100 times more lead than regulated products. THC degradation in concentrates reaches 16.6 percent after one year at room temperature and 41.4 percent after four years. But more concerning, thermal breakdown during vaping produces volatile organic compounds including isoprene, methacrolein, and various aldehydes from terpene degradation. And we have ZERO idea how long those test units took from production to delivery, or the conditions they were kept in. The only hint we have is that their website was registered in January of 2024. 

California saw 23 cannabis product recalls in 2024 (compared to just 3 each in 2022 and 2023), with many involving products that initially passed testing but later showed Aspergillus contamination. Deaths from aspergillosis have been documented in cannabis users as the only confirmed cannabis-related deaths from contamination, and not only in those already immunocompromised.

Laboratory fraud compounds the issue. California Cannabis Testing Labs (CCTL) had their license revoked in 2024 for inflating THC results and manipulating equipment. Praxis Laboratory in Washington falsified results for 1,200+ samples before permanent shutdown. If this is happening in states with supposedly stronger oversight, what's happening in Arizona's more permissive environment? Overall, as a whole we have a THC percent problem. Not with consumption, but with reporting.

Perhaps the most egregious deception involves how these products appear on cannabis databases like Leafly.

When patients search for "Blue Hawaiian" seeking specific terpene profiles for anxiety relief, or "Strawberry Cough" for its energetic effects, they see reviews and information for actual cannabis strains; not this homogenized slurry. The issue isn't with these platforms (yet…), but with brands that falsely label their products with strain names that bear no relation to what's actually inside. Every single Pressure product contains the exact same blend: distillate from G6 OG, AK 1995, Strawnana Gold, and Bangers and MAC; live resin from four different unknown strains; THCA from another unknown source. That's nine different strains mixed together, then artificially flavored to mimic 20 different products. For medical patients relying on strain-specific effects, this isn't just misleading. It's potentially harmful.

Remember how I mentioned these guys were operating with apparent impunity?

Shortly after my first article, someone DM'd me asking if I'd seen "the video of the Pressure guys fighting at Errl Cup."

I expected maybe some heated words. What I got was footage of grown men throwing full-on swings and throwing chairs behind tents at one of Arizona's premier cannabis events. Not shoving. Not shouting. Actual fists (and a chair!) flying right next to people's cars. How does a brand get into physical altercations at a major industry event and still maintain partnerships with multi-million dollar dispensaries? When The Mint Scottsdale's Inventory Control Manager told me verification requirements don't matter if you "know people," she clearly wasn't speaking hypothetically.

Speaking of "knowing people," they're currently listed as Weedmaps' #1 recommended brand. Shocking, considering there appear to be close social media connections between Pressure and Weedmaps employees. Their Pressure car even has the Weedmaps branding on it. Nothing suspicious about your ranking when you're friends with the people doing the ranking, right? Pressure's Weedmaps page lists prerolls and gummies as "COMING SOON," despite their website and Mint’s product page showcasing these products like they're already part of their established lineup. 

I reached out to Weedmaps for clarification on how the system actually works as it's a bit confusing to me. 

I noticed when you click “view all” it says "Brand Leaderboard" and as of writing, Pressure is currently the top recommended brand at 5.0 but only with two actual ratings at the time of writing this (17 at the time of editing and publishing) while the others are all in the thousand count, but under 5.0. I also noticed that Timeless is underneath Savvy on the listing order even though Timeless has a 4.5 over 9k ratings and Savvy has a 4.2 over only 4.3k ratings in comparison. Is it a paid spot that the brands can opt in to be featured for a cost? Is it actually a recommendation? Why is a product rated higher with more votes listed underneath one rated lower with less? 

No, it’s just money. 

According to Arizona representative @weedmaps.treezy “Yea man it’s pay to play for those slots also we do events with brands and we push them. Not only if there [sic] next to us but if there [sic] the title sponsor.” Reasonably, when asked if that seemed a little misleading, all he returned with was that he's only there to push the brand, not run it, and that the questions should be directed elsewhere. I did mention that I've attempted to reach out to Weedmaps official press contact, but got no response, to which Treezy offered “It’s takes a little time even for me when I try to get marketing.”

Sounds reminiscent of “He is the guy but very hard reach even for me when I work with him. Just send questions And I try get him answer.” I want to say give me whatever these guys are smoking on, but I fear that they're probably just ripping Pressure pens.

My Pressure Extracts saga has revealed something far more troubling than one brand's regulatory dodging.

It's exposed an entire industry infrastructure designed to maintain plausible deniability while prioritizing profits over consumer safety. Every single product in Pressure's line is essentially the same thing in different packaging, using 11-month-old flower processed into distillate, mixed with live resin and diamonds from various sources, creating a Frankenstein-eqsue product that bears no chemical resemblance to the strains they're named after.

When year-old inventory can be repackaged as 20 different "premium strains," when "knowing people" overrides safety protocols, we don't have a regulated market. We have regulatory theater. The real tragedy? There are brands doing everything right, following every regulation, prioritizing consumer safety. But in a market where cutting corners is rewarded and "knowing people" matters more than knowing what's in your products, doing the right thing becomes a competitive disadvantage. How many more Pressure Extracts are out there, operating in the shadows of "perfectly legal" loopholes?

For consumers, the message is clearer than ever: Your safety is now a DIY project in Arizona's cannabis market. And if that doesn't scare you, you haven't been paying attention.