When pot became legal I thought I'd buy some and try to phase out my prescription sleeping pills. I explained to the clerk I wanted something to help me relax and go to sleep and he gave me something he said was primarily Indica. I was wide awake with my mind racing until dawn that night.

Okie Dokie and all fermented grapes are the same because they get you drunk, and botanists say they're all basically grapes,,,,.AND YET, all those wonderful varieties of wine, all different...same with the chronic. Nevertheless, to grow the industry, the notion of tremendous variety and subtle flavors and nuanced effects needs to spread, so as to market such and make chronic dough, maybe, eventually,,,The Craft Pot Industry is coming $$$$ unless big ears Sessions shuts er down

"Scientists are just starting to understand how these terpenes affect people"

Oh, ok, please let me shut up and listen to the people who know everything. Very convincing.

So is there any experimental evidence that terpenes in pot do what people think they do, either?

Sure, mixtures and stuff, but you could recreate a synthetic blend of compounds you think are relevant.

(My suspicion is differences in psychoactivity are due to various cannabinoids, not terpenes. I know what limonene does and doesn't do to my consciousness when it comes in lemon peel.)

For that matter, is there any real proof that different strains do have different effects in blind tests? That would be good to confirm.

just shut up and smoke it if you got it. simple. done. you're welcome.

Yeah... so... I don't think people are deciding that indicas tend to have one set of effects and sativas another based on the size of the plants guys. Perhaps it is because, I don't know, people have been using these substances for decades and have noticed these effects and patterns.

There is no way to reductively analyze terroir in wine so I would be shocked if there is any detectable chemical profile across Cannabis strains that would reductively indicate their effects either. That's setting aside the consumer reports studies showing that uneducated people can't tell $10 bottles from $500 ones.

Here's an illustration: A low THC indica like The Remedy will have little to no "stoned" effect on me. It simply calms me down. A sativa with a similarly low THC level will also have the same effect. It's all about the chemical profile of the strain for me, not so much about a particular species of cannabis.

I've tried adding drops of Terpenes to different strains. A limonene one (Strawberry Lemonade) felt more clearheaded(than that strain by itself) and a Grapefruit one(sorry not sure what the actual name of the terpene is/are) made me feel sleepier than that strain by itself. Overall, the terpene effect, besides the added taste and smell, does change how a strain feels, and for me, it enhances it a bit. I like to say that terpenes also "encapsulate" the high, as in you're aware of it more. But all in all, everyone will respond differently. To each strain and each terpene.

The energetic type heavy indicas make me super stoned for example. Some people smoke all day and work. Those people don't understand that not everyone that smokes can do that.

If you really want to find out what's right for you, you just have to try a few different things. Use the knowledge out there as a guideline, but don't be surprised if something is having a different effect on you than what someone said it would, because they're not you. It literally took me 15 years to find the right "medication," and the right weed for "recreation" through trial and error. Now I know what's right for me, and if you want, you can too.

Every time I find a strain I like, it's off the shelves the next time I'm buying. I like experimenting, but I'd like some standardization too.

This seems like one scenario where focus testing could be useful. Give a varied team of people your new strain, and a survey card for a few key data points (You know, 1-10, where 1 is sleepy and 10 is alert, and so on), then collate it all and look for common high/low scores for the strain. Put those on the label, and also a link to a company website with the full data, so people can chart their own experiences against the focus group. Use the customer-submitted data to improve the accuracy of your labeling, and also look for larger trends, like a particular strain having a widely reported effect, for more targeted breeding.

I don't think this would be terribly expensive... The website would be the most expensive part, and that could be made pretty bare-bones.

@11 I volunteer. For science.

Thank you for this article. I've been arguing this for a while. I used to grow weed, back in the 80s, and spent a lot of time reading everything I could on the subject. THC, CBD and CBN were mentioned in some of the literature, so it is interesting to see that scientists are looking at aspects of the plant besides the big three cannabinoids.

I believe sativa was initially the most common type of weed, but indica became more popular over time (cheaper weed tended to be sativa). Indica has significant advantages when grown illegally. You can grow it in a shorter room inside -- it is easier to hide when grown outside.

But a messy alternative based on real science is superior to an arbitrary distinction made up by ill-informed people selling pot during its prohibition. recommended

I don't think you can blame ill-informed people who sold pot during its prohibition. Back in the day, I never read anything, or heard anyone say that indica would give you a different high than sativa. I sold both, and never made a claim like that. They were all just different varieties of weed. Some weed was more expensive (because it was tastier, or just stronger) than others, but it wasn't like you could walk into a store and view dozens of different varieties. That is all new (starting first with medical marijuana) and the bold and unsubstantiated claims followed.

Call me crazy, but I'm going to rely on my own empirical experience rather than the scientific and medical communities who spent decades declaring arrogant nonsense like "no benefits can possibly result from lighting plant matter on fire and breathing its smoke." The scientific method is a great way to help us learn more about the world around us. But too much emphasis on reductionist materialism at the expense of empiricism is how we end up with this idiotic cycle of saying that chocolate/wine/coffee will kill you one week and then a week later saying they will make you live longer, repeated ad nauseam. It's going to be a long time before we can gain more practical info about cannabis by looking into a microscope than we can by talking to people who have been using it for decades.

I'm sure the scientists, who are formally aligned in the assertion that there is no medicinal value in cannabis, are correct again. But as others here have said, after forty years of smoking cannabis, and noting that sativa is for vacuuming the house and indica is for laying down and zoning out, I tend to concur with that general rule that these are legitimate observations of experienced users.

That said, now that cannabis is being grown and hybridized by every weiner with a basement, the likelihood of encountering pure indica or pure sativa is increasingly rare. But I think that when the science catches up with the experience, they will explain they were wrong in language that makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. Kind of like the author of this article.

@10 Even if it is the 'same' strain, I've seen vastly different effects from one batch to the next. The first time I had Harlequin it was eye-opening (I got it for the CBD/THC ratio - high CBD, low THC). Whatever the ratio was in the first gram that I go, it worked great. 2 hits, I got a little relaxed for about 20 minutes, not wasted, the pain melted out of my knees, and I was good for walking around and climbing stairs for several days with no inflammation.

The next batch (same store, supposedly the same strain) I found myself way more stoned than I wanted to be, and I found myself grabbing and holding on to the edge of my desk for about ½ hour. When I compared the labels...yeah, it was the 'same' strain, but the ratio of CBD/THC was totally different, and the effect was also markedly different.

Yeah, standardization would be nice, but there has to be some way of differentiating between multiple packagings of what is supposed to be the 'same'.

now i read this i'm knowing sativa vs. indica is a real debate with real differences beyween them, so i am wondering, can indica get you high? what about sativa, can sativa get you high?

So it's not scientifically accurate. It's a stand in. big deal, deal with it. Is every IPA scientifically and IPA? No not at all, its generalization and categorization. Generally Indicas do make some people more sedated and relaxed. Generally Sativas have been known to make people have a headier high. WHO THE FUCK CARES. smoke it and see what you like. Do all Pinot Noirs taste like chocolate and lead pencils? Nope, but it's the same fucking generalizations and you don't hear people freaking about about that in wine. .

The genus cannabis has three kinds of species: Indica, Sativa and Ruderalis. While it is certainly the case that many factors go into what make you high, and what the high feels like, it is undeniable that there are species level differences. Ruderalis for example doesnt get you high at all. So it is not just their physical differences that makes them different. They are intrinsically different.