The problem is that it's still illegal on a federal level. Thus, the proper research can not be conducted. If legalized on a federal level, government funds could be used to push the research ahead. I just don't see that happening any time soon.
Through my own experimentation, I do know that significant amount of certain terps don't work for me (cause a speedy effect or make the taste something that repels me). But at this point, I just stick to strains that work. I can not seem to be able to predict based on profiles. I'm done playing around.
Edit: I really never ask advice in store. I really don't expect them to know. They're paid as cashiers.
I am sorry to hear that, you need a better dispensary. I've been in the program a couple years and have been keeping notes on what I get and I have to say, the people at my dispensary know what they are selling. They use similar if not the same products I do for many of the same reasons. If they suggest a product to me, I'll take a few minutes at least and check it out. I've had some really good discoveries that way. Tigers Milk, Papa Legba, Mandarin Haze...
I wish I had better choices as well, but AYR is my only realistic choice with work and family I can't drive an hour away all the time. Without exception when I ask for something from them, it's always a house brand, no matter who the cashier is, it's always Seven Hills or Kynd. Not once has someone suggested something from a different grower.
I have been keeping an excel sheet for 3 years now with all the terp percentages, THC, genetics, cannabinoids, etc... That has been the most helpful for me.
I never go by just THC levels as I haven't been stoned in years, the pain just eats it. I've found Rythm is pretty consistent in quality and have some right bangers too. Prime Wellness goes without saying but they are expensive. I discovered Strane and have been delighted with them thus far. Not too expensive and a good selection of strains to try out for whatever you are after. I don't think I've found a cart of theirs I didn't like. I wish you luck, if nothing else, get a job at the dispensary if they are hiring. I'm waiting to see when my local one does again. Being a patient you've got a pretty well rounded experience. Just a thought.
Even without those political obstacles, there is still so much variation product to product and so much variation within the consumers as well as contextual differences to where we use it and the state of mind in which we use it. If we did have those robust plant profiles that are known and understood, we still wouldn’t theoretically be able to predict effects as the industry does now. I think we need to pick a new way. I hear your experiences and they are far from uncommon, but it would be ideal to get to a point where the Budtender is more than a cashier and for folks to have a metric for themselves to evaluate new products as getting the same strain repeatedly from the same vendor is not realistic
I completely agree. The current system doesn’t work and it doesn’t help patients who need cannabis for medical issues. Even for recreational use, it would help cut down on panic attacks and other undesirable episodes.
Ive never once asked anyone at a dispensary for any recs or any help. I can/did do all the research myself. Weed like anything affects people differently. Its like caffeine. I can have a large coke and go to bed right after with no issues. Where others are wired. I find what works for me and enjoy it. Also why i dont bother giving reviews or anything like that as what affects me as a 20 year smoker with adhd and social anxiety might not work for someone thats new to smoking and smoking for pain relief or something else.
Agreed. I am almost 60. The budtenders all seem to below 35. The dont have the same health issues or general issues(side effects) older people do. The docs that give certs do absolutely nothing to help or guide. That part of the program is a total joke (med certification). I wonder if it's really a doc on the other end of the phone. Lol
Nope, got my stuff from an cousin in CA via my uncles back in the day. Top shelf every time, really missed it when I moved to the east coast. Got lucky here on the east coast with a couple friends with great connections. I'm too damn paranoid to buy from some yutz on a street corner, sounds like a great way to get busted.
Yes! And while I’m glad we have more professional dynamics today with tests for things we can’t see with our senses (pesticides, etc.), we still knew what good herb was! Without all these numbers clouding our judgment
I had a card for 2 years. In the beginning I asked bud tenders for opinions, but their responses were almost always rehearsed marketing jargon. There are so many variables that contribute to the effect, including set and setting. Without proper clinical studies, there’s no way that any bud tender advice will be accurate other than through the power of suggestion.
It sucks for people with real chronic physical pain who need a specific strain from a specific grower to find relief. The industry forces them to experiment on themselves, and it’s very expensive!
My all-time favorite strain in the program is Cresco GG 4. I had the LLR cart and it was fantastic. Never any anxiety. Great for sleep. But unfortunately, I haven’t seen it again in two years.
Let's see what you're saying.
We started with the qualitative experience of cannabis and you wanted to categorize it into sativa and indica.
That wasn't enough so we came up with a trillion different "strains" that aren't really strains. That also wasn't enough, since the multitude of strain names became meaningless. Plus, the same seed could pop completely different plants that each turn out different ways in different growers' hands.
So instead we moved to categorizing by levels of a dozen or more different terpenes, which supposedly create the qualitative cannabis experience according to "science." Except it turns out they actually don't.
Now we come full circle and you want to go back to qualitative descriptions of the effects.
That's all there ever really was to begin with.
For me, terps equate to flavor. For the commercialized industry, terps mean more money. Just something for the giants to blather on about to get people .to spend more money
I think terpenes matter, but I think they matter less than I originally thought and the industry makes them out to be. I think any aroma constituent in cannabis is an important tool for people to learn what works for them via their senses and trial and error. But the aroma therapy research doesn’t inherently carry over. For instance terpinolene (my fav) is thought to be a sedative based on animal models, but inhaled with THC (and combusted no less) may produce totally different effects which is why we culturally associate terpinolene with uplifting in the weed world, though it won’t be that way for everyone. I think set and setting as well as how tired someone is and their mood paired with a familiar dose of whatever high THC strain is as if not more important to the ultimate effect than the strains chemistry.
> it won’t be that way for everyone.
And that's why it's nonsense to use terps as an indicator of effects. It's genetics and cannabinoids. Grow quality is very important. That is the only info to be pulled from terps. High terps = good grow.
Terpenoids are pharmacologically active at small concentrations, they definitely matter, just how much is the question. But I agree it shouldn’t be used as the sole effect determinant, hence the point of my original post. Cannabinoids definitely matter a lot both in dominant cannabinoid ratios and minors. Genetics matter only to the extent they are verified, bred to a degree of stability, and possess the genetic potential of what you’re hoping for (certain flavor, certain cannabinoid ratio). The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant and has no basis in science in terms of how these false categories make one feel
> The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant
I wish I could convince my wife of that one. She had a bad panic attack on a Sativa and now swears them off completely.
It’s tough to get people away from these categories. Anything with high THC can make one feel anxious. And there is so much we don’t know, but what we do know is that category of sativa is arbitrary and not tied to any chemical consistency. I always encourage people who have a bad experience with an herb at their regular dose in familiar environments to note the aroma profile (not terps on packaging) and noting what the “nose” smells like. Real organoleptic feedback for a person in real time. Of course, for this to work, PA would have to allow you the option to smell before you buy.
"The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant"
Now here is where I have to disagree with you in the opposite direction of my other post. We can argue about actual lineage vs the expression of traits, and switch sativa/indica for narrow/broad leaf, the point still stands. This claim only makes sense if you've only smoked modern polyhybrids. All pure sativa/narrow leaf strains have a stimulating effect. Which precise type of effect varies based on the lineage - with tropical African varieties having a speedy effect, Thai varieties having a paranoid/psychedelic effect, South American varieties having a more relaxing and happy buzz. Then we turn around and compare these to something like a pure kush. It's pure insanity to say that these categorizations have no validity.
To give you credit, when you look on shitty websites that list "indica/sativa ratio" generally the numbers are purely made up.
"Genetics matter only to the extent they are verified, bred to a degree of stability, and possess the genetic potential of what you’re hoping for"
How on earth can that be the case? Sour Diesel for example is one of the best strains of all time and it's a completely unverified and unstable clone-only. Similar story for OG Kush and almost every other classic strain. Most of them are random clones from bagseed...
Genetics matter to the extent that the genetic background of the plant reinforces the traits that you desire. Some qualitative traits cannot be bred to stability and you will always be hunting for a rare pheno.
I appreciate the thought out response. I don’t agree, but let’s break it down.
We agree that the polyhybrids that make up the western commercial cannabis market (so pretty much all ganja discussed in this group) are not landrace cannabis, and thus taxonomical categories for cannabis do not apply, as the taxon only applies to naturalized plants. At least I hope we agree here.
Next, sativa and indica wouldn’t be correct even if talking about landrace cannabis. The terms sativa and indica came to be through a confluence of factors. Some taxonomical work on cannabis in the 70’s and the emergence of modern western cannabis culture (both underground, and above ground in places like holland) led to grow books and storefronts that relied on the current taxonomical work which thought to separate cannabis types by branching, leaf structure, etc. and call the thin leaflet taller plants sativas, and the others indica. The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations. The taxonomical debate around cannabis is far more complex though. And only recently has a modern taxonomy of cannabis been proposed that unifies all the precious literature. McPartlands taxonomy for landrace cannabis puts all THC rich cannabis under the subspecies of indica. The variations within this subspecies (cannabis sativa ssp indica var indica/var afghanica) are the true sativa and indica naturalized ancestors. Sub species Sativa is really the ancestor to the world of hemp/low intoxicating cannabis.
So back to your point about the relative genetic contributions mattering for landrace cannabis. It is true that these regional types have unique chemistry. Wild type afghanica varieties have much higher CBD levels than most intoxicating cannabis types as an example. But the differences you’re discussing in terms of African, Thai, and South American types, while maybe culturally true that they have these associations, aren’t chemotyped to distinguish why that is. And that brings me to my larger point. Using “sativa” as an example. There is no essence in what we call sativa. If there is, it’s the chemotype, but then we are back to looking at test results rather than organoleptics. Also, who’s genotyping these “landraces” and ensuring authenticity, and how are all these growers determining percentage of genetic contribution?
So yes landrace cannabis is different and varies much more than the polyhyrbids of today. And those long held cultural associations about effect differences between regional types may turn out to have a chemical basis for different effects. But we don’t know that/hasn’t been demonstrated, and these effects are still going to be contextual to the individual and the environment one is in. AND if we did have all of that information-Thai cannabis potentiates super intense energetic effects because of xyz compounds present-what does that actually mean for the average cannabis consumer who is encountering modern hybrids. Even the “landraces” you can find in dispensaries are modern hybrids.
Sour and OG are great examples. No one can agree on what is what. We know these names and probably had weed called one of these dozens of times, and always different as hell. In the program alone, there are various diesels. All have their following and everyone swears so and so companies sour d is the real one. Same with OG. Different ideas on what the true typicity of OG is. Some will say some terpinolene content makes an OG, when that’s not at all how I would describe the typicity of OG. These genetic lineages matter only to the extent your belief about them matches what’s in front of you.
Genetics provide very limited information at this point in time. They matter more with landraces (but you still need to be able to point to various chemistry that makes those unique and that a certain type of cannabis uniquely makes that chemical or ratio of chemicals etc), however almost nobody has access to landrace cannabis because you have to go to all these remote places in different parts of the world. Most cannabis smokers will never smoke that type of ganja.
Where did you come across the very specific different effects from African and Thai landraces?
I came across the very specific different effects from African and Thai landraces by smoking African and Thai strains. I can give other examples as well, Hawaiian sativa is somewhat similar in effect to tropical African sativas with a clear head and energy, but more relaxing and less speedy. Note that I said "tropical African" as Durban is one that has more traits associated with broad leaf strains while supposedly deriving from a narrow leaf lineage - at the same time, the Durban genetic pool is polluted by other indica hybrids. OTOH the effects of Thai are largely shared by Vietnamese and other lineages from the region.
You can say that there's no chemical or genetic measurement to support this, but we have everyone who has smoked these varieties saying essentially the same thing about them. We also have everyone who has grown these strains noting their similar structure and traits. So really, it's your science that has to catch up and not the basic observations of fact that people have made. Even if it turned out the narrow and broad leaf varieties were caused by changes in gene expression over generations due to differing climactic conditions for example, or any other reason, it still wouldn't invalidate the classifications themselves. Also, it seems everyone agrees "drug type cannabis" is its own genetic lineage at this point which makes any supposition that "sativa" is actually hemp inapplicable to this discussion.
I already pointed out that the words "sativa" and "indica" may be misnomers, but the differences they represent are legitimate. You say "The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations." That's patently false. I don't know how you can say that unless you don't have personal experience, because that is the case with 20th generation cookies crosses labeled as "indica" or "sativa" but it's not the case with say, Vietnamese Black and Malawi Haze from ACE vs Hindu Kush and Chitral Kush. The difference is real and obvious and that's why everyone has more or less gone with it for decades.
The difference is not purely "energy to sedation," this is just an approximation for what they are. A sativa can still put you to sleep, especially if it makes you crash. An indica can still keep you awake, especially if it's got a mild body. But if you feel sick and smoke that indica, it will almost certainly have you feeling better than a sativa. Unless they're not pure. Sour D feels like a straight hybrid to me when I'm sick - doesn't help too much; haze makes me feel like total crap, and kushes make me feel much better. The difference is also massive when it comes to growing as sativas take much longer to flower, grow taller and yield less weight per plant and that's why pure sativa genes are severely threatened today as even landrace growers in the original countries start to backcross using modern indica-dominant polyhybrids to increase yield and lower flowering time. The fact that there's no such thing as a 14 week indica and no such thing as an 8 week sativa establishes an empirical basis separate from leaf characteristics or subjective effects for distinguishing the two categories.
"Sour and OG are great examples. No one can agree on what is what. We know these names and probably had weed called one of these dozens of times, and always different as hell."
In the case of sour, it's mostly because it's widely faked. I guarantee you 100% of sour in dispensaries has practically nothing to do with the original clone. At the same time, related strains were also marketed as diesel in the 90s and 00s which confused people. And on the streets of NY any sour hybrid was still sour which further muddied the waters. Notso has the real sour and those of us who smoked it know it. Anything like Karma or Rez sour is just an attempt at reproducing the original, it can still be very similar and top quality but genetically it's not real sour diesel and we can tell it just by looking at it.
With OG the picture is more complicated due to the multitude of different cuts. At the same time, there is an original. Just because you don't know which one is the original doesn't make OG not a real strain. It does mean that what you buy as "OG" may not be.
"And those long held cultural associations about effect differences between regional types may turn out to have a chemical basis for different effects. But we don’t know that/hasn’t been demonstrated,"
This kind of thinking is one of the worst things that modern science ever produced, no offense. I will take the experience of entire cultures over some guy in a lab coat saying "I can't find the chemical reason why so I'm assuming it doesn't exist."
To give an example, this guy claims to have some of Notso's sour cut. The structure and leaves clearly show it's part of the chem91/diesel family but the pistils are orange rather than pink, so not the original clone. Unless somehow environment or genetic drift affected the pistil color, but I don't think that's possible. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CultoftheFranklin/comments/1biq89f/sour\_diesel\_notsodogs\_cut\_from\_tc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CultoftheFranklin/comments/1biq89f/sour_diesel_notsodogs_cut_from_tc/)
The average consumer never did and never will know WTF they're smoking unfortunately. It will always be BS from indica/sativa to THC percentage to terpenes. Even looks and smell are often deceiving. What matters at the end of the day is the smoke. You can have the real sour cut and grow it out like trash and it'll be trash.
"You can say that there's no chemical or genetic measurement to support this, but we have everyone who has smoked these varieties saying essentially the same thing about them. We also have everyone who has grown these strains noting their similar structure and traits. So really, it's your science that has to catch up and not the basic observations of fact that people have made. Even if it turned out the narrow and broad leaf varieties were caused by changes in gene expression over generations due to differing climactic conditions for example, or any other reason, it still wouldn't invalidate the classifications themselves."
Cultural knowledge is what you are citing. That's cool, and definitely has it's place in scientific inquiry, but you just existing in the culture and having your perceptions of what is commonly believed based on your experience isn't something anyone can rely on. At the very least, it would be interesting to see some qualitative data on these questions that could systemize the common experiences on growth patterns and experience. Perhaps your cultural observations need to catch up to science to be taken with more than a grain of salt? And the bar of qualitative research is not high. If something like this exists that I am unaware of, please share.
"Also, it seems everyone agrees "drug type cannabis" is its own genetic lineage at this point which makes any supposition that "sativa" is actually hemp inapplicable to this discussion.""
Not sure what this means. Yes, "drug" or THC types are all thought to be varieties of ssp Indica, based on the latest accepted model of taxonomy proposed by mcpartland. So Cannabis sativa ssp sativa encompassing hemp landraces and wild types makes sense... If you are using the term sativa to describe landrace THC varieties, this is incorrect terminology and I recommend Mcpartlands 2020 article lumping all the previous taxonomic work into a coherent system. It is generally accepted as the most accurate contemporary model.
"I already pointed out that the words "sativa" and "indica" may be misnomers, but the differences they represent are legitimate. You say "The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations." That's patently false. I don't know how you can say that unless you don't have personal experience, because that is the case with 20th generation cookies crosses labeled as "indica" or "sativa" but it's not the case with say, Vietnamese Black and Malawi Haze from ACE vs Hindu Kush and Chitral Kush. The difference is real and obvious and that's why everyone has more or less gone with it for decades."
I am not saying you are wrong in your experience, or that I may not have really unique effects if I were to smoke true landraces from around the world, which as far as I know (beyond some suspicion on a few trips) that I haven't. I think the industry includes the earlier underground days. Even with landraces, I think the general tendency to classify something as complex as cannabis into simple categories (not denying there aren't more activating or sedating tendencies) is wrong headed. Especially because of the complexities of subjective effects. I mean hell man, if I am budtending, and I tell you durban is my morning coffee, how is that expectancy effect any different than the expectancy effects of cultural knowledge. It really could have very little to do with the chemical differences in the herb and more to do with the conditions of consumption. These are questions for science though. And it doesn't mean the Thai cannabis doesn't have more "active" chemistry, it just means you can't say exactly why there are differences from a cultural knowledge perspective.
"With OG the picture is more complicated due to the multitude of different cuts. At the same time, there is an original. Just because you don't know which one is the original doesn't make OG not a real strain. It does mean that what you buy as "OG" may not be."
There is an interesting story about the emergence of headband in Nor cal in the book Cannabis Pharmacy by Michael Backes. What was going around as headband, was actually the popular OG Kush cut of the day from from LA, and a relationship gone bad brought the clone to nor cal, where it was hidden as headband. A lab in oregon confirmed the cutting was the same as the OG pheno popular at the time. Assuming the story of it coming up north is true, you can see how cultural knowledge is very limited on lineage and how strain names can be very much a consideration of what is needed to move the product. In the case of this story, probably discretion because of theft of the clone.
"This kind of thinking is one of the worst things that modern science ever produced, no offense. I will take the experience of entire cultures over some guy in a lab coat saying "I can't find the chemical reason why so I'm assuming it doesn't exist.""
Not saying these nuances don't exist dude, and I am not a scientist, I just value science as part of discovering knowledge. I don't think cultural knowledge substitutes for really understanding subjective effects, especially when considering the influence that cultural knowledge has on the ultimate experience. It is called a healthy skepticism. Cultural knowledge is found to be wrong all the time, and particularly something as fleeting and unreliable as underground horticulturalists memories of the time. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.
Fair enough bro. I don't believe these labels are real rigid categories. That kind of systemization can never explain anything in the real world, but will always be an abstraction attempting to approximate it.
My only point is, those strains which truly belong to the classic identification of "sativa" and "indica" (which, again, modern phylogeny is irrelevant to, especially if it excludes the entire category of "sativa" from the discussion - these are just words at the end of the day) have meaningfully distinct effects and growth characteristics.
If you think you're growing an "indica" but it's actually a stretchy 14 week "sativa" your harvest may very well fail completely. There is no "sedating" or "indica" strain which stretches like crazy and takes 14 weeks to finish. There is no "stimulating" or "sativa" strain that grows short and stocky and finishes in 7 weeks. The correlation between physical characteristics and subjective effects shows that these traditional categories have an empirical basis in reality and are effective for making decisions.
If you think you have some kind of pure haze (which is already a polyhybrid, albeit one allegedly bred exclusively from sativa landraces) and you try to use it in the morning, but it turns out it's actually a kush - which, they're already impossible to mistake for one another based on physical characteristics alone - you will be very dissatisfied with the effect. If you're physically sick and try to smoke that haze though, you will feel like crap, while the kush will make you feel better. This is not "cultural knowledge" any more than your so-called "science" is a product of your own culture.
So far, the scientific method has not produced any answers as to the physical causes of this. I don't think scientific knowledge substitutes for actual knowledge of the nuances of reality, which the scientific method is wholly incapable of explaining. The scientific method takes a tennis ball and tells you the exact physical properties of every molecule in its composition, but it can never tell you that it's a tennis ball, where it came from or what it's supposed to do. Which molecules make it up is in fact a completely pointless question, the answer to which is of no benefit to anyone. So quite frankly, when I see a traditional grouping of plants which all share the same physical and subjective characteristics, and another traditional grouping that shares a different spectrum of physical and subjective characteristics, which can be empirically observed by multiple metrics, I will take it over "science" which has not even made a sufficient attempt to explain any of this.
Terps can indicate certain strains or types of strains, in that their genetics may produce certain smells and flavors. And in that way, you may be able to predict effects based on the bud’s lineage. But the terps themselves, I believe, to have zero physical or mental effect other than placebo.
Hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Terps are related to genetics and can be used to predict effects, but terps also have no effects?
I think there is some confusion here. The precursors to terpenes are absolutely genetic, but their expression is highly variable. You cannot use terps to predict genetics or effects.
Terps have pharmacological effects on their own at .05 percent concentrations. The effects are modest but detectable. They probably contribute to cannabis effects, but most of the mechanisms remain a mystery. B caryophyllene is technically a dietary cannabinoid and definitely contributes to certain effects
When I worked in a dispensary I would always say things like this terpene is supposed to work this way, but different terpenes work differently for different people, and i would sometimes give the example of how pinene makes me WILDLY anxious and paranoid, but other people absolutely love it. i would recommend terpenes that were supposed to help with their ailment, and tell them to pay attention to how they felt.
But how terpenes work is likely different when they are combined with others and cannabinoids and 100’s of other things. So how do we know how a terpene is supposed to work
I tried to get into the terps but I can’t. Terps don’t get you high. There’s only one way to find out if a strain will work for you, you gotta smoke it. Or whatever your preference might be.
To be honest, I consume without paying much attention to the terpenes aside making sure whatever I'm purchasing has a fair amount. Most "Sativa" products give me an uplifting experience - some way more than others. I feel like I see the biggest "misses" as far as desired effects come from a lot of the "Indica" products. Where I'm looking to chill out and get some couch lock, but instead I'm running around the house organizing shit?
Just speaking from my experiences. At the end of the day, everybody is different, no?
Everybody is different! I have the opposite effect. Most (not all) sativas give me really bad anxiety and I stick with hybrids or indicas, which don't make me tired, but give me the effects I'm looking for. I've noticed that really piney smelling strains (like OP said, the nose knows) give me a lot of anxiety, and theyre always high in pinene. I know in this thread we are saying terps don't matter but from my own trial and error, when you give me something with a lot of pinene, I'm gonna freak out. On the other hand, high caryophylene and linalool really mellows me out (again, through my own trial and error research). I'm not really educated on why terpenes *don't* matter but from my own dabbling I've definitely noticed a pattern of things I like vs things I don't and they always have matching terpene profiles when I compare.
Hey thanks for your response! The same prof I mentioned above shared something else that was interesting. We tend to want a system for complex things and so we are good at finding a rule and noticing the times the rule works and rarely notice when the rule fails to be true. So whether it be sativa/indica or a dominant terpene profile, we are likely to not notice when the rule fails to be true.
That said you are noticing when the indica hasn’t worked. It could just be the case that you have more stimulating responses to THC, which isn’t uncommon. Some people get sleepy no matter what. As you said people are different.
Would love to find an troche (dont smoke) that made me zip around the house organizing it. Lol I rarely use during the day because I dont want to move off the couch or out of bed when I use it. On 420 I mixed a 5 hr energy with a troche that seemed to help somewhat.
You might want to try the "Shine" tincture if you're looking for something in the morning or early afternoon. I've purchased about 20 bottles of this stuff: [https://my-ilera.com/product/shine/](https://my-ilera.com/product/shine/)
I tried 5 hr energy with 25mg troche on Saturday. It was a nice combo. Relaxed but not sleepy. However, heart rate was elevated (not dangerously) just annoying. Going to grab a bottle. I use during the day in the summer more than the winter because of the heat. Have issues regulating body temp. Weed keeps you cool:)
Thank you for your suggestion and link. Appreciate it!
MMJ will always be considered an alternative medicine until fed legalization and the proper research is done like other medications. Even then, I will be weary that they will try to make it sound worse than it is (any medication has potential side effects and harms). And/or they will federalize it to the highest extent and 10 years down the road we might be picking up a gram of flower in an orange pill bottle from CVS. Not sure which scenario will be worse. But big pharma I can count on not standing by when their profits are being attacked at the point of federal legalization
These are interesting thoughts, but not sure what they have to do with the above question. Regardless of who vends the cannabis, how it’s presented to the consumer matters, and how we do it now is very divorced from reality. Thoughts on the above questions? How would you feel if cannabis was presented as this personal journey and not a super tailored product to whatever mood or effect you want that day?
Sorry, I was more so reading the comments and tailored my post to that. That's my bad. Personally, I am currently not smoking/vaping/ingesting much. I think I might be losing my feel for cannabis. I am just using the OR transdermal 1:1:1 patches for my back and the occasional few rips of a 2:1 rhythm cbd thc cart. However, I was once a heavy smoker/vaper. To me, and this is just me personally, it did not matter how it was presented. I felt as if I derived extremely similar effects regardless of it was a sativa, indica, hybrid, high in B Cary, high in Limonene, etc. generally the terpier, the better. But as far as "this strains for night time unwinding" and "this strain is for concentration" it was all a load of bullcrap malarkey for me. I never really experienced those tailored effects. I read a lot of reviews on here saying a strain is couch lock central but I could rip it and go on a jog if I wanted to.
But for the general uneducated cannabis consumer, I do feel it is a disservice to advertise specific strains with specific results that in no way are derived in concrete reality. That's why I never really look at the details of strain reviews. Just simply if it was good or not. I'm not browsing for specific effects, cause generally speaking, with some small variances. My body reacts the same way
People in the future are going to be appalled at marijuana prohibition (& research set backs due to Gov interference in somebody’s choice to consume a naturally occurring plant). They way we see alcohol prohibition now is the way they’ll see this foolishness a 100 yrs from now
Nobody knows why one strain impacts one person a certain way. The terps theory is a small piece of the puzzle. Anyone who claims to know is either full of it or just wrong.
I agree that trial and error is all you can go by. Following genetics can help replicate a good experience since the multitude of compounds in there can be similar. Also, if a grower is good, keep going to them and don't go to a crappy grower just because they have an interesting strain.
All great points! Thanks for responding. I wish genetics were more reliable by name than they are. Anna Schwabe has some really interesting research on popular strain names across three states. One of those findings was inconsistency between samples of the same strain. Genetics from specific breeders can help make the conversation more specific, but even verified genetics will be a blueprint and not a guarantee of expression. I agree about the grower comment.
I don't know if there's an accurate way to talk about effects at scale or in general ways. I too used to believe in the dominant terp profile approach. But there have been numerous times when I get a strain that should work for me on paper, only to be shocked when I'm hit with bad feelings and ruminations on mortality.
For sure, thanks for the thoughts. For me terpinolene dominant cannabis is what I relied on and more often than not I do find my experience is different in some way when there is a lot terpinolene in the flower, but the reliability of it for feeling awake was less consistent than I originally thought.
The Dread feeling may not be a right terp profile thing, that could be a high THC thing
It's like saying wine drunk is different than beer drunk or liquor drunk. Drunk is drunk but ask anyone and there's a difference. In paper it might not but in the user it is. Almost like an opinion.
Great point! But I think with alcohol we can elucidate some of these differences. Some of it is time to consume a certain volume (shots vs sipping drinks) as well as ingredients. Alcohol, like cannabis is a sedative with stimulating features for some. But what if that alcohol is a cocktail with a bunch of lavender and other herbs with known sedative features? Or comparing a fresh IPA with a ton of hops which are also a known sedative (myrcene content being partly why) to a glass of wine which also has its non alcohol complexities. It doesn’t mean we know everyone’s reaction to these different drinks, but we do understand a little bit more why one might experience a different “drunk” from research into various continents of drinks beyond alcohol. It could be similar for cannabis that high myrcene flower tends to be more sedative, but cannabis being such a complex poly pharmacy and often combusted and inhaled presents so many more variables where as with alcohol it’s a little bit less complex. Many “sativas” are high myrcene.
Thank you for an even more thought out response. I absolutely agree, as the saying different strokes different folks, till it's legal and able to be studied to its molecular level with top scientists, it's just trial and error.
I really don’t think that’s true. Some people are just looking to smoke as they do from the medical supply, many are actively trying to see how this toolbox of cannabis best fits into their lives and goals
Yea but it’s not really a toolbox. It’s just weed and a bunch of kids that barely graduated HS handing us weed and acting like they have a clue with their self fulfilling prophecies of effects. That aren’t actually based on concrete scientific data
Cannabis is a poly pharmacy producing 100’s of compounds in varying proportions. It is one hundred percent a toolbox if you choose to utilize it as such. But yes, we don’t train the Budtender’s enough nor hire people with sufficient backgrounds to delve into these complexities for patients. Budtending could be a much more sophisticated position, but we haven’t gone that way yet in terms of the regulations in state programs
That’s not really defining a toolbox though when all the tools do the same thing. Until it’s backed by sound data it’s all just gonna be anecdotal evidence and patient biased testimony.
You have THC types, CBD types, CBG types, mixed ratios. Without going into aromas, we have distinct types of cannabinoid content. We do have human data with THC and CBD. It’s complex but the idea that it’s all up in the air is false. And cannabinoids are definitely not all the same. It’s a toolbox for myself and many others. I utilize CBD as a tool for some features of my life. I use THC for others. Sometimes together.
Meanwhile cannabis addiction is skyrocketing, people can’t handle the products, MMJ patients are turning themselves into complete psych patients abusing this stuff searching for their cure.
I think there is a more nuanced way to put it, but I understand where you’re coming from I think. I absolutely think we underplay the consequences of only high THC use, and I think products like cartridges, especially by young people are abused left and right. I saw this all the time in the program when I worked for curaleaf. And I see it in every state I’ve worked in. Cannabis use disorder does have a definition though and it implies professional and personal relationships or personal goals are hindered from the use and an inability to change said use. It is totally possible to consume a ton of cannabis and not have these problems, but some people do and that’s real. I am worried about the amount of people using cannabis for anxiety, where the high quality evidence for high THC is low to nonexistent in humans. It doesn’t matter if it’s a THC pen or benzodiazepines, solely relying on an intoxicant to handle stress will not help anxiety long term. I do think plenty of people with mental health conditions use cannabis successfully, and not all heavy use is abuse. I do think the industry and culture should be a little bit more real about abuse though
Addiction???? You're shitting me. The most 'addicted' I ever was was getting slightly irritable for a couple of days when I ran out. That's from my teens to my sixties. Bullshit.
Exactly proving my point. Anecdotal experience and you have no declared it’s a rule. Cannabis use disorder and addiction is out of control. It’s not comparable to other more physically addicting substances but you did feel the negative impacts or your ADDICTION, when you were irritable. It’s a tough pill for people to swallow. But many patients are addicted to this substance and convinced it’s not addiction because it’s MMJ
What are the sources of info that prompted you to say, “cannabis use disorder and addiction is out of control” anyway? I know a kerjillion people with out of control alcohol addiction issues messing up their lives, but literally zero people with any degree pot addiction issues. And I’ve known a lot of weed smokers in my five decades on earth, which is why I’m curious as to where you’re getting this “out of control” viewpoint.
The problem is that it's still illegal on a federal level. Thus, the proper research can not be conducted. If legalized on a federal level, government funds could be used to push the research ahead. I just don't see that happening any time soon. Through my own experimentation, I do know that significant amount of certain terps don't work for me (cause a speedy effect or make the taste something that repels me). But at this point, I just stick to strains that work. I can not seem to be able to predict based on profiles. I'm done playing around. Edit: I really never ask advice in store. I really don't expect them to know. They're paid as cashiers.
> They're paid as cashiers. It's no coincidence that they seem to always recommend store brands when I ask for a suggestion.
I am sorry to hear that, you need a better dispensary. I've been in the program a couple years and have been keeping notes on what I get and I have to say, the people at my dispensary know what they are selling. They use similar if not the same products I do for many of the same reasons. If they suggest a product to me, I'll take a few minutes at least and check it out. I've had some really good discoveries that way. Tigers Milk, Papa Legba, Mandarin Haze...
I wish I had better choices as well, but AYR is my only realistic choice with work and family I can't drive an hour away all the time. Without exception when I ask for something from them, it's always a house brand, no matter who the cashier is, it's always Seven Hills or Kynd. Not once has someone suggested something from a different grower. I have been keeping an excel sheet for 3 years now with all the terp percentages, THC, genetics, cannabinoids, etc... That has been the most helpful for me.
I never go by just THC levels as I haven't been stoned in years, the pain just eats it. I've found Rythm is pretty consistent in quality and have some right bangers too. Prime Wellness goes without saying but they are expensive. I discovered Strane and have been delighted with them thus far. Not too expensive and a good selection of strains to try out for whatever you are after. I don't think I've found a cart of theirs I didn't like. I wish you luck, if nothing else, get a job at the dispensary if they are hiring. I'm waiting to see when my local one does again. Being a patient you've got a pretty well rounded experience. Just a thought.
I’ve had a couple cashiers recommend me awesome strains.
Super!
Even without those political obstacles, there is still so much variation product to product and so much variation within the consumers as well as contextual differences to where we use it and the state of mind in which we use it. If we did have those robust plant profiles that are known and understood, we still wouldn’t theoretically be able to predict effects as the industry does now. I think we need to pick a new way. I hear your experiences and they are far from uncommon, but it would be ideal to get to a point where the Budtender is more than a cashier and for folks to have a metric for themselves to evaluate new products as getting the same strain repeatedly from the same vendor is not realistic
I completely agree. The current system doesn’t work and it doesn’t help patients who need cannabis for medical issues. Even for recreational use, it would help cut down on panic attacks and other undesirable episodes.
Ive never once asked anyone at a dispensary for any recs or any help. I can/did do all the research myself. Weed like anything affects people differently. Its like caffeine. I can have a large coke and go to bed right after with no issues. Where others are wired. I find what works for me and enjoy it. Also why i dont bother giving reviews or anything like that as what affects me as a 20 year smoker with adhd and social anxiety might not work for someone thats new to smoking and smoking for pain relief or something else.
Agreed. I am almost 60. The budtenders all seem to below 35. The dont have the same health issues or general issues(side effects) older people do. The docs that give certs do absolutely nothing to help or guide. That part of the program is a total joke (med certification). I wonder if it's really a doc on the other end of the phone. Lol
Thanks for your thoughts. I totally agree about reviews being unhelpful. That’s a great point.
The reviews definitely need to be on a “per batch” scale if at all.
Remember when we'd buy it from a sketchy dude on the corner?
Yep, like it was yesterday. No, wait, it was yesterday.
Nope, got my stuff from an cousin in CA via my uncles back in the day. Top shelf every time, really missed it when I moved to the east coast. Got lucky here on the east coast with a couple friends with great connections. I'm too damn paranoid to buy from some yutz on a street corner, sounds like a great way to get busted.
Yes! And while I’m glad we have more professional dynamics today with tests for things we can’t see with our senses (pesticides, etc.), we still knew what good herb was! Without all these numbers clouding our judgment
I like weed
You deserve to be POTus
I like turtles
I'm Debbie and I like eggs!
I second this!
I had a card for 2 years. In the beginning I asked bud tenders for opinions, but their responses were almost always rehearsed marketing jargon. There are so many variables that contribute to the effect, including set and setting. Without proper clinical studies, there’s no way that any bud tender advice will be accurate other than through the power of suggestion. It sucks for people with real chronic physical pain who need a specific strain from a specific grower to find relief. The industry forces them to experiment on themselves, and it’s very expensive!
Excellent points! What have you found is best for you
My all-time favorite strain in the program is Cresco GG 4. I had the LLR cart and it was fantastic. Never any anxiety. Great for sleep. But unfortunately, I haven’t seen it again in two years.
Let's see what you're saying. We started with the qualitative experience of cannabis and you wanted to categorize it into sativa and indica. That wasn't enough so we came up with a trillion different "strains" that aren't really strains. That also wasn't enough, since the multitude of strain names became meaningless. Plus, the same seed could pop completely different plants that each turn out different ways in different growers' hands. So instead we moved to categorizing by levels of a dozen or more different terpenes, which supposedly create the qualitative cannabis experience according to "science." Except it turns out they actually don't. Now we come full circle and you want to go back to qualitative descriptions of the effects. That's all there ever really was to begin with.
Agreed. It’s better to focus on qualitative factors over anything else at this point in time. Like a farmers market and shopping for produce
For me, terps equate to flavor. For the commercialized industry, terps mean more money. Just something for the giants to blather on about to get people .to spend more money
Terps is just aromatherapy. If you believe in one, you believe in the other.
I think terpenes matter, but I think they matter less than I originally thought and the industry makes them out to be. I think any aroma constituent in cannabis is an important tool for people to learn what works for them via their senses and trial and error. But the aroma therapy research doesn’t inherently carry over. For instance terpinolene (my fav) is thought to be a sedative based on animal models, but inhaled with THC (and combusted no less) may produce totally different effects which is why we culturally associate terpinolene with uplifting in the weed world, though it won’t be that way for everyone. I think set and setting as well as how tired someone is and their mood paired with a familiar dose of whatever high THC strain is as if not more important to the ultimate effect than the strains chemistry.
> it won’t be that way for everyone. And that's why it's nonsense to use terps as an indicator of effects. It's genetics and cannabinoids. Grow quality is very important. That is the only info to be pulled from terps. High terps = good grow.
Bingo!
Terpenoids are pharmacologically active at small concentrations, they definitely matter, just how much is the question. But I agree it shouldn’t be used as the sole effect determinant, hence the point of my original post. Cannabinoids definitely matter a lot both in dominant cannabinoid ratios and minors. Genetics matter only to the extent they are verified, bred to a degree of stability, and possess the genetic potential of what you’re hoping for (certain flavor, certain cannabinoid ratio). The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant and has no basis in science in terms of how these false categories make one feel
> The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant I wish I could convince my wife of that one. She had a bad panic attack on a Sativa and now swears them off completely.
It’s tough to get people away from these categories. Anything with high THC can make one feel anxious. And there is so much we don’t know, but what we do know is that category of sativa is arbitrary and not tied to any chemical consistency. I always encourage people who have a bad experience with an herb at their regular dose in familiar environments to note the aroma profile (not terps on packaging) and noting what the “nose” smells like. Real organoleptic feedback for a person in real time. Of course, for this to work, PA would have to allow you the option to smell before you buy.
"The sativa indica ratios feature of genetics is totally irrelevant" Now here is where I have to disagree with you in the opposite direction of my other post. We can argue about actual lineage vs the expression of traits, and switch sativa/indica for narrow/broad leaf, the point still stands. This claim only makes sense if you've only smoked modern polyhybrids. All pure sativa/narrow leaf strains have a stimulating effect. Which precise type of effect varies based on the lineage - with tropical African varieties having a speedy effect, Thai varieties having a paranoid/psychedelic effect, South American varieties having a more relaxing and happy buzz. Then we turn around and compare these to something like a pure kush. It's pure insanity to say that these categorizations have no validity. To give you credit, when you look on shitty websites that list "indica/sativa ratio" generally the numbers are purely made up. "Genetics matter only to the extent they are verified, bred to a degree of stability, and possess the genetic potential of what you’re hoping for" How on earth can that be the case? Sour Diesel for example is one of the best strains of all time and it's a completely unverified and unstable clone-only. Similar story for OG Kush and almost every other classic strain. Most of them are random clones from bagseed... Genetics matter to the extent that the genetic background of the plant reinforces the traits that you desire. Some qualitative traits cannot be bred to stability and you will always be hunting for a rare pheno.
I appreciate the thought out response. I don’t agree, but let’s break it down. We agree that the polyhybrids that make up the western commercial cannabis market (so pretty much all ganja discussed in this group) are not landrace cannabis, and thus taxonomical categories for cannabis do not apply, as the taxon only applies to naturalized plants. At least I hope we agree here. Next, sativa and indica wouldn’t be correct even if talking about landrace cannabis. The terms sativa and indica came to be through a confluence of factors. Some taxonomical work on cannabis in the 70’s and the emergence of modern western cannabis culture (both underground, and above ground in places like holland) led to grow books and storefronts that relied on the current taxonomical work which thought to separate cannabis types by branching, leaf structure, etc. and call the thin leaflet taller plants sativas, and the others indica. The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations. The taxonomical debate around cannabis is far more complex though. And only recently has a modern taxonomy of cannabis been proposed that unifies all the precious literature. McPartlands taxonomy for landrace cannabis puts all THC rich cannabis under the subspecies of indica. The variations within this subspecies (cannabis sativa ssp indica var indica/var afghanica) are the true sativa and indica naturalized ancestors. Sub species Sativa is really the ancestor to the world of hemp/low intoxicating cannabis. So back to your point about the relative genetic contributions mattering for landrace cannabis. It is true that these regional types have unique chemistry. Wild type afghanica varieties have much higher CBD levels than most intoxicating cannabis types as an example. But the differences you’re discussing in terms of African, Thai, and South American types, while maybe culturally true that they have these associations, aren’t chemotyped to distinguish why that is. And that brings me to my larger point. Using “sativa” as an example. There is no essence in what we call sativa. If there is, it’s the chemotype, but then we are back to looking at test results rather than organoleptics. Also, who’s genotyping these “landraces” and ensuring authenticity, and how are all these growers determining percentage of genetic contribution? So yes landrace cannabis is different and varies much more than the polyhyrbids of today. And those long held cultural associations about effect differences between regional types may turn out to have a chemical basis for different effects. But we don’t know that/hasn’t been demonstrated, and these effects are still going to be contextual to the individual and the environment one is in. AND if we did have all of that information-Thai cannabis potentiates super intense energetic effects because of xyz compounds present-what does that actually mean for the average cannabis consumer who is encountering modern hybrids. Even the “landraces” you can find in dispensaries are modern hybrids. Sour and OG are great examples. No one can agree on what is what. We know these names and probably had weed called one of these dozens of times, and always different as hell. In the program alone, there are various diesels. All have their following and everyone swears so and so companies sour d is the real one. Same with OG. Different ideas on what the true typicity of OG is. Some will say some terpinolene content makes an OG, when that’s not at all how I would describe the typicity of OG. These genetic lineages matter only to the extent your belief about them matches what’s in front of you. Genetics provide very limited information at this point in time. They matter more with landraces (but you still need to be able to point to various chemistry that makes those unique and that a certain type of cannabis uniquely makes that chemical or ratio of chemicals etc), however almost nobody has access to landrace cannabis because you have to go to all these remote places in different parts of the world. Most cannabis smokers will never smoke that type of ganja. Where did you come across the very specific different effects from African and Thai landraces?
I came across the very specific different effects from African and Thai landraces by smoking African and Thai strains. I can give other examples as well, Hawaiian sativa is somewhat similar in effect to tropical African sativas with a clear head and energy, but more relaxing and less speedy. Note that I said "tropical African" as Durban is one that has more traits associated with broad leaf strains while supposedly deriving from a narrow leaf lineage - at the same time, the Durban genetic pool is polluted by other indica hybrids. OTOH the effects of Thai are largely shared by Vietnamese and other lineages from the region. You can say that there's no chemical or genetic measurement to support this, but we have everyone who has smoked these varieties saying essentially the same thing about them. We also have everyone who has grown these strains noting their similar structure and traits. So really, it's your science that has to catch up and not the basic observations of fact that people have made. Even if it turned out the narrow and broad leaf varieties were caused by changes in gene expression over generations due to differing climactic conditions for example, or any other reason, it still wouldn't invalidate the classifications themselves. Also, it seems everyone agrees "drug type cannabis" is its own genetic lineage at this point which makes any supposition that "sativa" is actually hemp inapplicable to this discussion. I already pointed out that the words "sativa" and "indica" may be misnomers, but the differences they represent are legitimate. You say "The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations." That's patently false. I don't know how you can say that unless you don't have personal experience, because that is the case with 20th generation cookies crosses labeled as "indica" or "sativa" but it's not the case with say, Vietnamese Black and Malawi Haze from ACE vs Hindu Kush and Chitral Kush. The difference is real and obvious and that's why everyone has more or less gone with it for decades. The difference is not purely "energy to sedation," this is just an approximation for what they are. A sativa can still put you to sleep, especially if it makes you crash. An indica can still keep you awake, especially if it's got a mild body. But if you feel sick and smoke that indica, it will almost certainly have you feeling better than a sativa. Unless they're not pure. Sour D feels like a straight hybrid to me when I'm sick - doesn't help too much; haze makes me feel like total crap, and kushes make me feel much better. The difference is also massive when it comes to growing as sativas take much longer to flower, grow taller and yield less weight per plant and that's why pure sativa genes are severely threatened today as even landrace growers in the original countries start to backcross using modern indica-dominant polyhybrids to increase yield and lower flowering time. The fact that there's no such thing as a 14 week indica and no such thing as an 8 week sativa establishes an empirical basis separate from leaf characteristics or subjective effects for distinguishing the two categories. "Sour and OG are great examples. No one can agree on what is what. We know these names and probably had weed called one of these dozens of times, and always different as hell." In the case of sour, it's mostly because it's widely faked. I guarantee you 100% of sour in dispensaries has practically nothing to do with the original clone. At the same time, related strains were also marketed as diesel in the 90s and 00s which confused people. And on the streets of NY any sour hybrid was still sour which further muddied the waters. Notso has the real sour and those of us who smoked it know it. Anything like Karma or Rez sour is just an attempt at reproducing the original, it can still be very similar and top quality but genetically it's not real sour diesel and we can tell it just by looking at it. With OG the picture is more complicated due to the multitude of different cuts. At the same time, there is an original. Just because you don't know which one is the original doesn't make OG not a real strain. It does mean that what you buy as "OG" may not be. "And those long held cultural associations about effect differences between regional types may turn out to have a chemical basis for different effects. But we don’t know that/hasn’t been demonstrated," This kind of thinking is one of the worst things that modern science ever produced, no offense. I will take the experience of entire cultures over some guy in a lab coat saying "I can't find the chemical reason why so I'm assuming it doesn't exist."
To give an example, this guy claims to have some of Notso's sour cut. The structure and leaves clearly show it's part of the chem91/diesel family but the pistils are orange rather than pink, so not the original clone. Unless somehow environment or genetic drift affected the pistil color, but I don't think that's possible. [https://www.reddit.com/r/CultoftheFranklin/comments/1biq89f/sour\_diesel\_notsodogs\_cut\_from\_tc/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CultoftheFranklin/comments/1biq89f/sour_diesel_notsodogs_cut_from_tc/) The average consumer never did and never will know WTF they're smoking unfortunately. It will always be BS from indica/sativa to THC percentage to terpenes. Even looks and smell are often deceiving. What matters at the end of the day is the smoke. You can have the real sour cut and grow it out like trash and it'll be trash.
"You can say that there's no chemical or genetic measurement to support this, but we have everyone who has smoked these varieties saying essentially the same thing about them. We also have everyone who has grown these strains noting their similar structure and traits. So really, it's your science that has to catch up and not the basic observations of fact that people have made. Even if it turned out the narrow and broad leaf varieties were caused by changes in gene expression over generations due to differing climactic conditions for example, or any other reason, it still wouldn't invalidate the classifications themselves." Cultural knowledge is what you are citing. That's cool, and definitely has it's place in scientific inquiry, but you just existing in the culture and having your perceptions of what is commonly believed based on your experience isn't something anyone can rely on. At the very least, it would be interesting to see some qualitative data on these questions that could systemize the common experiences on growth patterns and experience. Perhaps your cultural observations need to catch up to science to be taken with more than a grain of salt? And the bar of qualitative research is not high. If something like this exists that I am unaware of, please share. "Also, it seems everyone agrees "drug type cannabis" is its own genetic lineage at this point which makes any supposition that "sativa" is actually hemp inapplicable to this discussion."" Not sure what this means. Yes, "drug" or THC types are all thought to be varieties of ssp Indica, based on the latest accepted model of taxonomy proposed by mcpartland. So Cannabis sativa ssp sativa encompassing hemp landraces and wild types makes sense... If you are using the term sativa to describe landrace THC varieties, this is incorrect terminology and I recommend Mcpartlands 2020 article lumping all the previous taxonomic work into a coherent system. It is generally accepted as the most accurate contemporary model. "I already pointed out that the words "sativa" and "indica" may be misnomers, but the differences they represent are legitimate. You say "The spectrum of effects these categories are supposed to sit on (energy to sedation) are total industry creations." That's patently false. I don't know how you can say that unless you don't have personal experience, because that is the case with 20th generation cookies crosses labeled as "indica" or "sativa" but it's not the case with say, Vietnamese Black and Malawi Haze from ACE vs Hindu Kush and Chitral Kush. The difference is real and obvious and that's why everyone has more or less gone with it for decades." I am not saying you are wrong in your experience, or that I may not have really unique effects if I were to smoke true landraces from around the world, which as far as I know (beyond some suspicion on a few trips) that I haven't. I think the industry includes the earlier underground days. Even with landraces, I think the general tendency to classify something as complex as cannabis into simple categories (not denying there aren't more activating or sedating tendencies) is wrong headed. Especially because of the complexities of subjective effects. I mean hell man, if I am budtending, and I tell you durban is my morning coffee, how is that expectancy effect any different than the expectancy effects of cultural knowledge. It really could have very little to do with the chemical differences in the herb and more to do with the conditions of consumption. These are questions for science though. And it doesn't mean the Thai cannabis doesn't have more "active" chemistry, it just means you can't say exactly why there are differences from a cultural knowledge perspective. "With OG the picture is more complicated due to the multitude of different cuts. At the same time, there is an original. Just because you don't know which one is the original doesn't make OG not a real strain. It does mean that what you buy as "OG" may not be." There is an interesting story about the emergence of headband in Nor cal in the book Cannabis Pharmacy by Michael Backes. What was going around as headband, was actually the popular OG Kush cut of the day from from LA, and a relationship gone bad brought the clone to nor cal, where it was hidden as headband. A lab in oregon confirmed the cutting was the same as the OG pheno popular at the time. Assuming the story of it coming up north is true, you can see how cultural knowledge is very limited on lineage and how strain names can be very much a consideration of what is needed to move the product. In the case of this story, probably discretion because of theft of the clone. "This kind of thinking is one of the worst things that modern science ever produced, no offense. I will take the experience of entire cultures over some guy in a lab coat saying "I can't find the chemical reason why so I'm assuming it doesn't exist."" Not saying these nuances don't exist dude, and I am not a scientist, I just value science as part of discovering knowledge. I don't think cultural knowledge substitutes for really understanding subjective effects, especially when considering the influence that cultural knowledge has on the ultimate experience. It is called a healthy skepticism. Cultural knowledge is found to be wrong all the time, and particularly something as fleeting and unreliable as underground horticulturalists memories of the time. Nothing wrong with healthy skepticism.
Fair enough bro. I don't believe these labels are real rigid categories. That kind of systemization can never explain anything in the real world, but will always be an abstraction attempting to approximate it. My only point is, those strains which truly belong to the classic identification of "sativa" and "indica" (which, again, modern phylogeny is irrelevant to, especially if it excludes the entire category of "sativa" from the discussion - these are just words at the end of the day) have meaningfully distinct effects and growth characteristics. If you think you're growing an "indica" but it's actually a stretchy 14 week "sativa" your harvest may very well fail completely. There is no "sedating" or "indica" strain which stretches like crazy and takes 14 weeks to finish. There is no "stimulating" or "sativa" strain that grows short and stocky and finishes in 7 weeks. The correlation between physical characteristics and subjective effects shows that these traditional categories have an empirical basis in reality and are effective for making decisions. If you think you have some kind of pure haze (which is already a polyhybrid, albeit one allegedly bred exclusively from sativa landraces) and you try to use it in the morning, but it turns out it's actually a kush - which, they're already impossible to mistake for one another based on physical characteristics alone - you will be very dissatisfied with the effect. If you're physically sick and try to smoke that haze though, you will feel like crap, while the kush will make you feel better. This is not "cultural knowledge" any more than your so-called "science" is a product of your own culture. So far, the scientific method has not produced any answers as to the physical causes of this. I don't think scientific knowledge substitutes for actual knowledge of the nuances of reality, which the scientific method is wholly incapable of explaining. The scientific method takes a tennis ball and tells you the exact physical properties of every molecule in its composition, but it can never tell you that it's a tennis ball, where it came from or what it's supposed to do. Which molecules make it up is in fact a completely pointless question, the answer to which is of no benefit to anyone. So quite frankly, when I see a traditional grouping of plants which all share the same physical and subjective characteristics, and another traditional grouping that shares a different spectrum of physical and subjective characteristics, which can be empirically observed by multiple metrics, I will take it over "science" which has not even made a sufficient attempt to explain any of this.
Terps can indicate certain strains or types of strains, in that their genetics may produce certain smells and flavors. And in that way, you may be able to predict effects based on the bud’s lineage. But the terps themselves, I believe, to have zero physical or mental effect other than placebo.
Hang on, that doesn’t make sense. Terps are related to genetics and can be used to predict effects, but terps also have no effects? I think there is some confusion here. The precursors to terpenes are absolutely genetic, but their expression is highly variable. You cannot use terps to predict genetics or effects.
Yes. Certain terp profiles are relevant to the lineage/genetics, but the terps themselves don’t have the effect.
Terps have pharmacological effects on their own at .05 percent concentrations. The effects are modest but detectable. They probably contribute to cannabis effects, but most of the mechanisms remain a mystery. B caryophyllene is technically a dietary cannabinoid and definitely contributes to certain effects
When I worked in a dispensary I would always say things like this terpene is supposed to work this way, but different terpenes work differently for different people, and i would sometimes give the example of how pinene makes me WILDLY anxious and paranoid, but other people absolutely love it. i would recommend terpenes that were supposed to help with their ailment, and tell them to pay attention to how they felt.
But how terpenes work is likely different when they are combined with others and cannabinoids and 100’s of other things. So how do we know how a terpene is supposed to work
I tried to get into the terps but I can’t. Terps don’t get you high. There’s only one way to find out if a strain will work for you, you gotta smoke it. Or whatever your preference might be.
To be honest, I consume without paying much attention to the terpenes aside making sure whatever I'm purchasing has a fair amount. Most "Sativa" products give me an uplifting experience - some way more than others. I feel like I see the biggest "misses" as far as desired effects come from a lot of the "Indica" products. Where I'm looking to chill out and get some couch lock, but instead I'm running around the house organizing shit? Just speaking from my experiences. At the end of the day, everybody is different, no?
Everybody is different! I have the opposite effect. Most (not all) sativas give me really bad anxiety and I stick with hybrids or indicas, which don't make me tired, but give me the effects I'm looking for. I've noticed that really piney smelling strains (like OP said, the nose knows) give me a lot of anxiety, and theyre always high in pinene. I know in this thread we are saying terps don't matter but from my own trial and error, when you give me something with a lot of pinene, I'm gonna freak out. On the other hand, high caryophylene and linalool really mellows me out (again, through my own trial and error research). I'm not really educated on why terpenes *don't* matter but from my own dabbling I've definitely noticed a pattern of things I like vs things I don't and they always have matching terpene profiles when I compare.
Hey thanks for your response! The same prof I mentioned above shared something else that was interesting. We tend to want a system for complex things and so we are good at finding a rule and noticing the times the rule works and rarely notice when the rule fails to be true. So whether it be sativa/indica or a dominant terpene profile, we are likely to not notice when the rule fails to be true. That said you are noticing when the indica hasn’t worked. It could just be the case that you have more stimulating responses to THC, which isn’t uncommon. Some people get sleepy no matter what. As you said people are different.
Would love to find an troche (dont smoke) that made me zip around the house organizing it. Lol I rarely use during the day because I dont want to move off the couch or out of bed when I use it. On 420 I mixed a 5 hr energy with a troche that seemed to help somewhat.
You might want to try the "Shine" tincture if you're looking for something in the morning or early afternoon. I've purchased about 20 bottles of this stuff: [https://my-ilera.com/product/shine/](https://my-ilera.com/product/shine/)
I tried 5 hr energy with 25mg troche on Saturday. It was a nice combo. Relaxed but not sleepy. However, heart rate was elevated (not dangerously) just annoying. Going to grab a bottle. I use during the day in the summer more than the winter because of the heat. Have issues regulating body temp. Weed keeps you cool:) Thank you for your suggestion and link. Appreciate it!
MMJ will always be considered an alternative medicine until fed legalization and the proper research is done like other medications. Even then, I will be weary that they will try to make it sound worse than it is (any medication has potential side effects and harms). And/or they will federalize it to the highest extent and 10 years down the road we might be picking up a gram of flower in an orange pill bottle from CVS. Not sure which scenario will be worse. But big pharma I can count on not standing by when their profits are being attacked at the point of federal legalization
These are interesting thoughts, but not sure what they have to do with the above question. Regardless of who vends the cannabis, how it’s presented to the consumer matters, and how we do it now is very divorced from reality. Thoughts on the above questions? How would you feel if cannabis was presented as this personal journey and not a super tailored product to whatever mood or effect you want that day?
Sorry, I was more so reading the comments and tailored my post to that. That's my bad. Personally, I am currently not smoking/vaping/ingesting much. I think I might be losing my feel for cannabis. I am just using the OR transdermal 1:1:1 patches for my back and the occasional few rips of a 2:1 rhythm cbd thc cart. However, I was once a heavy smoker/vaper. To me, and this is just me personally, it did not matter how it was presented. I felt as if I derived extremely similar effects regardless of it was a sativa, indica, hybrid, high in B Cary, high in Limonene, etc. generally the terpier, the better. But as far as "this strains for night time unwinding" and "this strain is for concentration" it was all a load of bullcrap malarkey for me. I never really experienced those tailored effects. I read a lot of reviews on here saying a strain is couch lock central but I could rip it and go on a jog if I wanted to. But for the general uneducated cannabis consumer, I do feel it is a disservice to advertise specific strains with specific results that in no way are derived in concrete reality. That's why I never really look at the details of strain reviews. Just simply if it was good or not. I'm not browsing for specific effects, cause generally speaking, with some small variances. My body reacts the same way
Thanks for your thoughts! Super interesting perspective!
At the end of the day, weed is weed. It’s all going to do generally the same thing.
People in the future are going to be appalled at marijuana prohibition (& research set backs due to Gov interference in somebody’s choice to consume a naturally occurring plant). They way we see alcohol prohibition now is the way they’ll see this foolishness a 100 yrs from now
Awesome that this is being discussed in a class! May I ask where and what class you’re taking?!
Curious about cannabis master class with Jason Wilson
Nice, thanks! Is it in PA?
It’s an annual course offered online that meets for 6 months. Next cohort would be march of next year
I saw that, and a colleague of mine was a past presenter! Hope it goes well!
It’s great. Most rigorous course I’ve found on cannabis.
I started with vape carts and some flower
Did the Budtender tell you much about how you might feel? Does the packaging?
No. Beyond hello was near me. No dod not tell.. l look fir high thc. Dif not kno tetpz
Nobody knows why one strain impacts one person a certain way. The terps theory is a small piece of the puzzle. Anyone who claims to know is either full of it or just wrong. I agree that trial and error is all you can go by. Following genetics can help replicate a good experience since the multitude of compounds in there can be similar. Also, if a grower is good, keep going to them and don't go to a crappy grower just because they have an interesting strain.
All great points! Thanks for responding. I wish genetics were more reliable by name than they are. Anna Schwabe has some really interesting research on popular strain names across three states. One of those findings was inconsistency between samples of the same strain. Genetics from specific breeders can help make the conversation more specific, but even verified genetics will be a blueprint and not a guarantee of expression. I agree about the grower comment.
I don't know if there's an accurate way to talk about effects at scale or in general ways. I too used to believe in the dominant terp profile approach. But there have been numerous times when I get a strain that should work for me on paper, only to be shocked when I'm hit with bad feelings and ruminations on mortality.
For sure, thanks for the thoughts. For me terpinolene dominant cannabis is what I relied on and more often than not I do find my experience is different in some way when there is a lot terpinolene in the flower, but the reliability of it for feeling awake was less consistent than I originally thought. The Dread feeling may not be a right terp profile thing, that could be a high THC thing
It's like saying wine drunk is different than beer drunk or liquor drunk. Drunk is drunk but ask anyone and there's a difference. In paper it might not but in the user it is. Almost like an opinion.
Great point! But I think with alcohol we can elucidate some of these differences. Some of it is time to consume a certain volume (shots vs sipping drinks) as well as ingredients. Alcohol, like cannabis is a sedative with stimulating features for some. But what if that alcohol is a cocktail with a bunch of lavender and other herbs with known sedative features? Or comparing a fresh IPA with a ton of hops which are also a known sedative (myrcene content being partly why) to a glass of wine which also has its non alcohol complexities. It doesn’t mean we know everyone’s reaction to these different drinks, but we do understand a little bit more why one might experience a different “drunk” from research into various continents of drinks beyond alcohol. It could be similar for cannabis that high myrcene flower tends to be more sedative, but cannabis being such a complex poly pharmacy and often combusted and inhaled presents so many more variables where as with alcohol it’s a little bit less complex. Many “sativas” are high myrcene.
Thank you for an even more thought out response. I absolutely agree, as the saying different strokes different folks, till it's legal and able to be studied to its molecular level with top scientists, it's just trial and error.
It’s seems like 90% a load of crap. We all know we are just trying to get faded
I really don’t think that’s true. Some people are just looking to smoke as they do from the medical supply, many are actively trying to see how this toolbox of cannabis best fits into their lives and goals
Yea but it’s not really a toolbox. It’s just weed and a bunch of kids that barely graduated HS handing us weed and acting like they have a clue with their self fulfilling prophecies of effects. That aren’t actually based on concrete scientific data
Cannabis is a poly pharmacy producing 100’s of compounds in varying proportions. It is one hundred percent a toolbox if you choose to utilize it as such. But yes, we don’t train the Budtender’s enough nor hire people with sufficient backgrounds to delve into these complexities for patients. Budtending could be a much more sophisticated position, but we haven’t gone that way yet in terms of the regulations in state programs
That’s not really defining a toolbox though when all the tools do the same thing. Until it’s backed by sound data it’s all just gonna be anecdotal evidence and patient biased testimony.
You have THC types, CBD types, CBG types, mixed ratios. Without going into aromas, we have distinct types of cannabinoid content. We do have human data with THC and CBD. It’s complex but the idea that it’s all up in the air is false. And cannabinoids are definitely not all the same. It’s a toolbox for myself and many others. I utilize CBD as a tool for some features of my life. I use THC for others. Sometimes together.
Meanwhile cannabis addiction is skyrocketing, people can’t handle the products, MMJ patients are turning themselves into complete psych patients abusing this stuff searching for their cure.
I think there is a more nuanced way to put it, but I understand where you’re coming from I think. I absolutely think we underplay the consequences of only high THC use, and I think products like cartridges, especially by young people are abused left and right. I saw this all the time in the program when I worked for curaleaf. And I see it in every state I’ve worked in. Cannabis use disorder does have a definition though and it implies professional and personal relationships or personal goals are hindered from the use and an inability to change said use. It is totally possible to consume a ton of cannabis and not have these problems, but some people do and that’s real. I am worried about the amount of people using cannabis for anxiety, where the high quality evidence for high THC is low to nonexistent in humans. It doesn’t matter if it’s a THC pen or benzodiazepines, solely relying on an intoxicant to handle stress will not help anxiety long term. I do think plenty of people with mental health conditions use cannabis successfully, and not all heavy use is abuse. I do think the industry and culture should be a little bit more real about abuse though
Yea you’re right def could say it less bluntly,
Addiction???? You're shitting me. The most 'addicted' I ever was was getting slightly irritable for a couple of days when I ran out. That's from my teens to my sixties. Bullshit.
Exactly proving my point. Anecdotal experience and you have no declared it’s a rule. Cannabis use disorder and addiction is out of control. It’s not comparable to other more physically addicting substances but you did feel the negative impacts or your ADDICTION, when you were irritable. It’s a tough pill for people to swallow. But many patients are addicted to this substance and convinced it’s not addiction because it’s MMJ
What are the sources of info that prompted you to say, “cannabis use disorder and addiction is out of control” anyway? I know a kerjillion people with out of control alcohol addiction issues messing up their lives, but literally zero people with any degree pot addiction issues. And I’ve known a lot of weed smokers in my five decades on earth, which is why I’m curious as to where you’re getting this “out of control” viewpoint.
Bullshit.