[MEGA] Indica vs. Sativa

[Nibiru]

Some parts of Asia are pretty isolated. People just save seed for next season, and have been for a long time. I mean, until recently, how many people have been going to Afghanistan? I have no real reason to believe that plants grown in certain parts of the Himilayas would have too many introduced genes. Mind you, in rather isolated parts of Oaxaca, they found transgenes in native maize that got there by 'accident'.

I have no lack of faith in an agricultural society's ability to maintain plant varieties though, and I've known enough seed savers and been part of enough of a general culture of passion for food and plants that I've seen people maintain varieties pretty well. Some chance cross pollination always happens, of course, but outside of big Dutch and Canadian seed companies, you have older cultures still using and breeding cannabis as part of very old traditions, and you can bet your ass there are relatively pure genes in there at least some of the time. Most of the time in some cases.

I definitely agree with you on the strain and high thing. Strains are a whole lot more relavent to the people growing the herb than the people smoking it, and tend to have a lot more to do with phenotypic characteristics of the plants themselves than little nuances of the high.

And it's true, dread! Moroccans were bred from indica stock, I looked it up.

 

[Shovelist]

Just like there are people who keep things "arian".

There are weed-heads who try and keep things pure.

 

[vecktor]

perhaps it is possible to keep species separate,
but it does seem that the commercial growers even in countries like the Rif in morocco have noticed the much higher yields possible with nederweed type hybrids. the other factor is the widespread growing of hemp (sativa) for fibre this has had the effect of spreading sativa all over the place.

One particular example i know of is the loss of a sub species or perhaps even a species, is the Monoecious (male and female on the same plant) sativa type that was found wild in coastal Kenya and Somalia, it is not common there any more and that has dissappeared in the last 25 years, the short dense indica types are now common instead, and that can only be explained by genetic pollution with imported indica.

 

[Shovelist]

Yea, most say its a mix, but mostly so and so.

A lot of people who talk strains know nothing about true cannabis.

 

[theWorldWithin]

For how many members are talking shit about how basic this subject is, it is fairly clear to me that most of the ADD heads here are not serious marijuana smokers.

First of all THC is most definitely not the only active compound, as was mentioned before THCV is also active on its own. Dozens of minor cannabinoids modulate the effect of THC adding layers of complexity. Further there are many other terpenoids in cannabis that are likely to be active.

For anyone claiming that the only active is THC, please get your head checked. Do you know anything at all about the cultivation process? Depending on when the bud is harvested the grower can roughly control the THC to CBD ratio, it is even visually verifiable by the coloration of the trichomes!

There are so many reports of medical users stating marinol pills are inferiod to multi cannabinoid marijuana treats.

ROA is incredibly important, smoking likely creates other psychoactive byproducts as evident in the radical difference between bioassays of the same sample via smoking and vaporization. Also oral cannabis produces the highly potent and psychedelic 11-HO-THC.

So to put it quite simply folks, it is not just THC. Get over it.

To take it one step further I have personally identified genetic components in blind taste tests very accurately time and time again. The subjective effects of a haze or afghanni influence are undeniable and generally rather predictable. I would venture to say that most of the naysayers here have never tasted a truly top quality bud (and no coffee shops do not have the best of the best).

Finally many seed banks offer landrace indicas. Sativas are more difficult to get genuine samples off because during the 1980s growers switched to higher yielding more stealthy faster maturing indica genetics in the US to evade increasing pressure from LE. Consequently much of the revered sativa landrace genetics were lost due to logistical constrains of the market but some have in fact been preserved. Also keep in mind at this time Holland was not a relevant player in the game, the world learned to grow high potency designer strains from US professionals.

 

[Nibiru]

I have noticed different subtleties in different stashes etc, and of course different cannabinoids effect the high, and CBD has even been scientifically shown to be responsible for a lot of things in marijuana that THC isn't. But I think owing to the rather long half-life of cannabinoids in the system, to be able to pin the exact difference in an exact strain or whatever is silly. Unless maybe you smoke one a few weeks before the other one, and aren't a chronic smoker. Really, I'm in the middle on this issue (at least I aim to be). Some strains likely have different effects, yes, non-THC cannabinoids CERTAINLY effect the high and the physiological response. Pure genes do exist, although to be sure can often be hard. But until real genuine scientific evidence proves all of this stuff regarding the subtleties of different grass as fact, I'm going to regard most of it as hearsay. And this will likely not happen any time soon because A.) Cannabis is illegal most places, stifling real research and B.)any experimentation done will likely be done by people with a pro cannabis or pro breeder bias, or people whose perception is generally coloured by cannabis culture or cannabis itself.

It's like people who swear that there is a certain isomer of a compound in an illicit substance without actually knowing based on subjective effects. It will always be subjective, an assumption. I'm not trying to be a naysayer, just trying to be rational. The factors are too complex for me to draw any solid conclusion, and all of the pot conniseurs in the world can keep getting huffy over my doubts, but I'll stand firm on my position until I see real evidence. Hearsay is bad science.

 

[piezocat]

I tend to think what we need are a few members to provide some real data in their posts.

Too much to ask?

 

[Nibiru]

Whoa, cool!

 

[theWorldWithin]

I have noticed different subtleties in different stashes etc, and of course different cannabinoids effect the high, and CBD has even been scientifically shown to be responsible for a lot of things in marijuana that THC isn't. But I think owing to the rather long half-life of cannabinoids in the system, to be able to pin the exact difference in an exact strain or whatever is silly. Unless maybe you smoke one a few weeks before the other one, and aren't a chronic smoker. Really, I'm in the middle on this issue (at least I aim to be). Some strains likely have different effects, yes, non-THC cannabinoids CERTAINLY effect the high and the physiological response. Pure genes do exist, although to be sure can often be hard. But until real genuine scientific evidence proves all of this stuff regarding the subtleties of different grass as fact, I'm going to regard most of it as hearsay. And this will likely not happen any time soon because A.) Cannabis is illegal most places, stifling real research and B.)any experimentation done will likely be done by people with a pro cannabis or pro breeder bias, or people whose perception is generally coloured by cannabis culture or cannabis itself.

It's like people who swear that there is a certain isomer of a compound in an illicit substance without actually knowing based on subjective effects. It will always be subjective, an assumption. I'm not trying to be a naysayer, just trying to be rational. The factors are too complex for me to draw any solid conclusion, and all of the pot conniseurs in the world can keep getting huffy over my doubts, but I'll stand firm on my position until I see real evidence. Hearsay is bad science.

Man where are you going with this? You blatantly admit that CBD effects the high then deny that cannabis has varied responses at the end of you post. Are the literally millions and millions of bioassays not conclusive enough evidence that cannabis offers different effects depending on strain? After all, science is based on nothing more than anecdotal accounts until enough are amassed to form a hypothesis and theory. Further if this idea is bogus do you not find it curious that haze consistently delivers the same 'placebo' effect every time someone smokes it (up, heady, psychedelic high) versus the down, sensual, often visual qualities of an afghani strain? There is clearly a large enough pattern that has developed across multiple cultural biases to make these users reports scientifically credible when viewed cumulatively.

Also to clarify, yes cannabinoids have a fairly long half life but only in the periphery. There are never active amounts of drug in the CNS more than a few hours after the initial intoxication has passed. Unless you take into account receptor down regulation being a factor in perceived effects there is nothing to influence subsequent administrations after the initial intoxication has worm off (perhaps psychological tolerance as well but this builds slowly and subtly). Besides the majority of cannabinoids stored in fat are likely to be non-active metabolites.

 

[Nibiru]

I don't deny that there are varied responses. I just don't trust anecdotal and culturally/perceptually biased evidence over genuine objective science to measure the specific responses accurately. To make an assumption on the subtle effect of indica vs sativa or one strain vs another as conclusive is just not enough until I see real, mathematically founded data. Not just anecdotes from users, and theories relating to the psychological effects of varied content shown in different herb, reliable data of which there is not enough of due to prohibition.

That's all. I don't deny that some genetic lines might have different effects, I just don't trust peoples' opinions on them as most of them come from outside of genuinely objective experimental data, and so will remain opinion and not fact.

 

[Hammilton]

Agreed; It would be incredibly stupid and antiscience to accept anecdotal evidence. And that is all there is. It wouldn't be hard to gather 40 people and test it in a way that was somewhat reliable. You'd need to verify the genetics of the seeds though. Just because someone is claiming that seeds are pure this or that means absolutely nothing.

I'm surprised genetic tests haven't been looked at already. It seems like an obvious area for research.

First of all THC is most definitely not the only active compound, as was mentioned before THCV is also active on its own. Dozens of minor cannabinoids modulate the effect of THC adding layers of complexity. Further there are many other terpenoids in cannabis that are likely to be active.

You misread. THCV is indeed active: but it's not psychoactive. It's a CB1 ANTAGONIST.

 

[invert]

Man where are you going with this? You blatantly admit that CBD effects the high then deny that cannabis has varied responses at the end of you post. Are the literally millions and millions of bioassays not conclusive enough evidence that cannabis offers different effects depending on strain? After all, science is based on nothing more than anecdotal accounts until enough are amassed to form a hypothesis and theory. Further if this idea is bogus do you not find it curious that haze consistently delivers the same 'placebo' effect every time someone smokes it (up, heady, psychedelic high) versus the down, sensual, often visual qualities of an afghani strain? There is clearly a large enough pattern that has developed across multiple cultural biases to make these users reports scientifically credible when viewed cumulatively.

No, that is not all that science is based on. Replication is an important part of the scientific method, but science doesn't just consist of lots of anecdotes; if it did, then one could argue that there is astonishingly good scientific evidence for the proposition 'There is a God which communicates with humans on a daily basis', because - anecdotally - there's a lot of support for that claim.

Crucial to the scientific method is that one rigorously consider alternative explanations, and that one tests a null hypothesis which - if true - would exclude the explanation of interest. In this case, the placebo effect is a powerful alternative explanation for every instance when someone who is aware of the strain they're smoking and its reputed effects confirms those effects.

The placebo effect is indeed very curious; it's amazing what the expectations of a human mind can do to its experience of a drug and its interpretations of that experience.

In addition to that, confirmation bias means that someone non-rigorously collecting experiences (anecdotes) is more likely to notice and remember those that conform with one's expectations.

Both these problems can be dealt with scientifically: Take a random sample of humans, administer sativa strains to some, indica strains to others, in such a way that they cannot tell by means of taste which strain they're getting (e.g. by administering orally in a capsule), and get them to fill in a questionnaire reporting their mental state and mood (maybe run some physical tests too, to check for objective increases or decreases in bp and pulse and temperature).

If the ROA matters, and one wants to use smoking rather than oral consumption, one could use drug-naive participants who'd be less likely to be aware of the tastes and reputed properties of different strains.

If one took this scientific approach, a couple of dozen participants could more effectively answer the question than any number of millions of anecdotes.

Personally, I've no idea, either way, what the truth is on the matter. But there is an answer, and it can be provided more clearly by science than by the casual anecdotal reports of cannabis users.

 

[squidhead]

After 40 yrs of tokin weed on a regular basis [started in Aug 1969]...& considering myself pretty 'old school'...I used to think that the weed we were getting from other Countries [like the Colombian Red Bud...& the Michoacan, Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Thai Sticks, etc] in the 70s & 80s was THE best. I have done a complete 180 on that assumption.
I know 3 different growers who supply me nowadays, as a 55 yr old dude can't roam the halls at the local high-school looking to score some smoke. The weed that's grown nowadays is by far better than it was 20, 30 & 40 yrs ago. What these growers produce now is SO much stronger & the high lasts WAY longer.
I've been alternating between C-99, BR 1947, Cherry Hemingway, Juicy Fruit, Super Silver Haze [1 of my faves], Sour Diesel, Northern Lights & Blueberry. I am thoroughly amazed at how potent the weed is now. I can do 3-4 bong blasts & be blasted for 3-4 hrs easily!! My sincere props to the younger generation [although 1 of my 3 growers is a 62 yr old lady] for making weed so much better than what we used to toke.
Although we did have some ass-kickin weed, it can't compare to the cannabis being grown presently. As for indicas vs sativas, I prefer indicas for my chronic pain [spinal-stenosis], but sativas for getting chores/errands accomplished.

 

[theWorldWithin]

No, that is not all that science is based on. Replication is an important part of the scientific method, but science doesn't just consist of lots of anecdotes; if it did, then one could argue that there is astonishingly good scientific evidence for the proposition 'There is a God which communicates with humans on a daily basis', because - anecdotally - there's a lot of support for that claim.

Crucial to the scientific method is that one rigorously consider alternative explanations, and that one tests a null hypothesis which - if true - would exclude the explanation of interest. In this case, the placebo effect is a powerful alternative explanation for every instance when someone who is aware of the strain they're smoking and its reputed effects confirms those effects.

The placebo effect is indeed very curious; it's amazing what the expectations of a human mind can do to its experience of a drug and its interpretations of that experience.

In addition to that, confirmation bias means that someone non-rigorously collecting experiences (anecdotes) is more likely to notice and remember those that conform with one's expectations.

Both these problems can be dealt with scientifically: Take a random sample of humans, administer sativa strains to some, indica strains to others, in such a way that they cannot tell by means of taste which strain they're getting (e.g. by administering orally in a capsule), and get them to fill in a questionnaire reporting their mental state and mood (maybe run some physical tests too, to check for objective increases or decreases in bp and pulse and temperature).

If the ROA matters, and one wants to use smoking rather than oral consumption, one could use drug-naive participants who'd be less likely to be aware of the tastes and reputed properties of different strains.

If one took this scientific approach, a couple of dozen participants could more effectively answer the question than any number of millions of anecdotes.

Personally, I've no idea, either way, what the truth is on the matter. But there is an answer, and it can be provided more clearly by science than by the casual anecdotal reports of cannabis users.

I do not want to get into a lengthy fight over what constitutes science but let me first say comparing the bioassays of millions of user is in no way comparable to religion which is propped up by numerous social institutions that have vested interested in convincing people of the existence of an imaginary deity. No one stands to profit from the sativa/indica debate on even a comparable order of magnitude so please do not make ridiculous comparisons (sure seedbands and some high end dealers may have profit motive here but it is minor and the debate raged many years before these businesses have been in operation).

Secondly your experiment is incredibly flawed for such an expert on what is and is not good science. Not only is that a statistically insignificant number of subjects (a couple of dozen?) which renders your entire study far weaker than my non-scientific evidence but its design is so flawed it sad. Inexperienced smokers will not be able to differentiate if they are even high, let alone the difference in effect profile. Also your suggestion for oral administration is absurd, as cannabinoids are converted to 11-ho-thc before reaching the cns.

While I agree that anecdotal evidence claiming a difference in mushroom strains is probably not very conclusive, this is due to the highly variable and overwhelming nature of strong serotongenic psychedelics. Cannabis is not even close to these drugs, its effects are generally predictable and the difference between strains is not only consistent but also far from subtle. Controlled studies are not the only way of obtaining reliable knowledge. We do not need to identify a specific receptor for spirituality to realize psychedelic can cause mystical experiences, this FACT has been discovered through countless user reported bioassays.

When one considers the extreme morphological differences in the plant structures, highly varied cannabinoid content (yet consistent within strains), predictable effects, testimony of countless cannabis experts, and documented applications of different strains for different purposes your assault on my argument amounts to shit. Science is not the only way of knowing. In fact in many cases sparse scientific evidence is far weaker than substantial anecdotal reports.

 

[Hammilton]

You should take a course in statistics and analysis. Get a copy of SPSS 15+ (I don't have experience with earlier versions, I don't know if they'd be worth using if they were available or not) and play around with the numbers. This is math, and math doesn't lie. With even 40 subjects the results will be more reliable than a billion anecdotal responses. This is incredibly obvious and doesn't hardly merit stating, but every one of those billion anecdotes is worth exactly nothing. This is really, really, really, basic stuff here. Any research methodology course or even a course in this sort of statistics (I'm forgetting what it's called right now. This isn't the sort of thing covered in a basic math statistics course I know, but I can't remember what it was actually called).

The university I went to focused heavily on applied psychology, barely had a course in anything clinical outside of a few counseling courses, so I had the great fortune of taking a lot of courses in research and statistics that didn't really interest me. At least I'm proficient with SPSS now.

Also your suggestion for oral administration is absurd, as cannabinoids are converted to 11-ho-thc before reaching the cns.

Not true. Or at least, only partly true. One or two cannabinoids may be, but the majority will not be. They are too different in structure for all of them to possibly be. Nor would oral administration alter anything. If the various cannabinoids present are actually responsible for a different intoxication, they will still create a different intoxication orally. You must compare like to like, of course, oral 'indica' vs. oral 'sativa' vs. oral placebo. These results would then only be applicable to oral administration then, just as results obtained by comparing smoked cannabis would only be applicable to smoked cannabis. Again, this is really basic it should hardly require mentioning; apparently it does, though.

Secondly your experiment is incredibly flawed for such an expert on what is and is not good science. Not only is that a statistically insignificant number of subjects (a couple of dozen?) which renders your entire study far weaker than my non-scientific evidence but its design is so flawed it sad. Inexperienced smokers will not be able to differentiate if they are even high, let alone the difference in effect profile.

You really don't understand how this works, do you? No one who had even a basic understanding of research statistics and methodology would ever make such a statement. Like I said earlier, even a billion anecdotal reponses is worth absolutely nothing.

Since this apparently difficult to understand, I'd suggest the following readings:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=218
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33

http://hitexchangereport.com/what-is-anecdotal-evidence/

http://stats.org/in_depth/evaluate_healthrisks/health_risks_page6.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability

first say comparing the bioassays of millions of user is in no way comparable to religion which is propped up by numerous social institutions that have vested interested in convincing people of the existence of an imaginary deity.

The bulk of your argument is based around accepting what billions of people claim as truth for truth. This is called argumentum ad populum in logic. It's fallacious.

Also, the particular quoted section is irrelevant. People believed in dieties before anyone profited from it. They have debated the issue before there was any profit motive. The same is true for whether or not cannabis strains produce a particular intoxication. There is absolutely no difference in the reliability of billions of anecdotal reports. Refer back to argumentum ad populum.

We do not need to identify a specific receptor for spirituality to realize psychedelic can cause mystical experiences, this FACT has been discovered through countless user reported bioassays.

More fallacy. Red herring, maybe. I'd need to think about it to figure out exactly which type of fallacy, but it's fallacious none the less.

That psychedelics can cause mystical experiences has been studied scientfically (The Good Friday study, for example) and shown to be true. Discovering a specific receptor to cause this is entirely irrelevant. It was studied in much the same way you'd conduct the study proposed herein.

testimony of countless cannabis experts

Appeal to authority: more fallacy.

your assault on my argument amounts to shit.

Invert's argument is well crafted and sound. On the other hand, your argument is riddled with one fallacy after another.

Basically it comes down to this:

Science is not the only way of knowing.

And to hear such a stupid comment is really disapointing.

It's entirely possible that indica's produce a different intoxication than sativa's. However, there is absolutely no way of knowing this without conducting a well designed study- even a well designed study with a small sample size is far more reliable than the anecdote you're willing to accept as meaningful.

 

[invert]

I do not want to get into a lengthy fight over what constitutes science but let me first say comparing the bioassays of millions of user is in no way comparable to religion which is propped up by numerous social institutions that have vested interested in convincing people of the existence of an imaginary deity. No one stands to profit from the sativa/indica debate on even a comparable order of magnitude so please do not make ridiculous comparisons (sure seedbands and some high end dealers may have profit motive here but it is minor and the debate raged many years before these businesses have been in operation).

You don't need vested interests to enable a placebo effect! :D

Secondly your experiment is incredibly flawed for such an expert on what is and is not good science. Not only is that a statistically insignificant number of subjects (a couple of dozen?) which renders your entire study far weaker than my non-scientific evidence but its design is so flawed it sad. Inexperienced smokers will not be able to differentiate if they are even high, let alone the difference in effect profile. Also your suggestion for oral administration is absurd, as cannabinoids are converted to 11-ho-thc before reaching the cns.

Statistically insignificant? You're confusing power and statistical significance, I think; depending on the size of the effect expected, different numbers of participants will be needed to detect as significant a real effect. A couple of dozen would be more than enough for most effects in perceptual psychology, rather less than enough perhaps for weaker social psychological effects; for example.

The suggestion of oral administration was to avoid the confound of taste; the suggestion of using drug-naive participants to avoid the placebo effect (even if they could taste it, they couldn't know what taste implies what feelings).

I wasn't suggesting that drug-naive participants be used to give an opinion on which strain they're smoking, or to discriminate the two strains! Rather, I was suggesting measuring the effects of the strains in two groups of participants, one group with one strain, the other group with the other; if there's a real effect to be found, it will be detected.

If you think the difference is very tiny, sure, we'd need more participants to detect it. But really, although this may not be a perfect design, it's not absurd either; suggested improvements are, of course, welcome... (not that I have any plans to conduct this study myself).

While I agree that anecdotal evidence claiming a difference in mushroom strains is probably not very conclusive, this is due to the highly variable and overwhelming nature of strong serotongenic psychedelics. Cannabis is not even close to these drugs, its effects are generally predictable and the difference between strains is not only consistent but also far from subtle. Controlled studies are not the only way of obtaining reliable knowledge. We do not need to identify a specific receptor for spirituality to realize psychedelic can cause mystical experiences, this FACT has been discovered through countless user reported bioassays.

When one considers the extreme morphological differences in the plant structures, highly varied cannabinoid content (yet consistent within strains), predictable effects, testimony of countless cannabis experts, and documented applications of different strains for different purposes your assault on my argument amounts to shit. Science is not the only way of knowing. In fact in many cases sparse scientific evidence is far weaker than substantial anecdotal reports.

Sure anecdotal evidence isn't devoid of use, but when one can do a controlled study, why the hell not? It'll produce considerably clearer evidence either way, because of the inherent problems of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Hammilton]

Statistically insignificant? You're confusing power and statistical significance, I think; depending on the size of the effect expected, different numbers of participants will be needed to detect as significant a real effect. A couple of dozen would be more than enough for most effects in perceptual psychology, rather less than enough perhaps for weaker social psychological effects; for example.

The suggestion of oral administration was to avoid the confound of taste; the suggestion of using drug-naive participants to avoid the placebo effect (even if they could taste it, they couldn't know what taste implies what feelings).

I wasn't suggesting that drug-naive participants be used to give an opinion on which strain they're smoking, or to discriminate the two strains! Rather, I was suggesting measuring the effects of the strains in two groups of participants, one group with one strain, the other group with the other; if there's a real effect to be found, it will be detected.

If you think the difference is very tiny, sure, we'd need more participants to detect it. But really, although this may not be a perfect design, it's not absurd either; suggested improvements are, of course, welcome... (not that I have any plans to conduct this study myself).

Well said, and entirely true.

The complaints about methodology are irrational (and ill-conceived). Of course a well designed study wouldn't be taking experienced users and asking them to tell you which subspecies they were consuming.

That creates all sorts of problems.

It makes much more sense to take have a sample population with both experienced and inexperienced users (and users in-between) and have them describe the intoxication using a 5-point Likert scale or maybe a semantic differential scale. I'd need to think about it more, but either would give data more far useful than the nominal-level data "indica or sativa" would give.

 

[Nibiru]

Ultimately, I would have to say that even in the attempt of controlling the experiment, it would be a pretty complex set of variables, and to prove something scientifically, variables have to be controlled. It would be and is currently a very hard thing to prove. Some people might be sure, but I won't be. Any evidence so far is not very convincing, and the prospect of evidence in the future is not so convincing, so for me to make a conclusion is pointless. And to want to make a conclusion to me can be unscientific, over the desire to possibly find a conclusion, the process of which is a lot more interesting than the outcome usually.

 

[Hammilton]

It doesn't seem difficult at all, actually. Verify two strains genetically. Determine the THC content. Administer doses properly so that equal THC levels are equal. Use a vaporizer so that smoking technique is not an issue. Instruct participants to hold the 'smoke' for a set period of time (say, 15 seconds) and make sure to measure the length of time it's actually held for.

From there you can analyze by age, weight, sex, experience level (months, years, etc), frequency of smoking, etc.

These are all things that can be looked at when analyzing the data. If there is any significant correlation between the answers regarding the subjective effects (preferably not just one likert or related scale, as many as possible for each aspect of the subjective experience) it can be found and then mentioned. Some of these could definitely have significant impact. I would expect that experience, frequency of use, and maybe weight and age could significantly correlate with the subject effects reported.

I doubt there'll be a statistically significant correlation between the subjective effects reported and strain, but it's certainly a possibility.

 

[Joshman]

I wonder if people would be able to tell the difference between ruderalis AND indica AND sativa

where does ruderalis even fit in? More "couch-lock" like indicas or energetic like sativas? in-between?