• CD Moderators: Thomas Davie | Darksidesam | Madness
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

[MEGA] Indica vs. Sativa

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.

Yeah, I guess. but I tend to never trust science fully, just a lot more than anecdote. "A Discordian is forbidden from believing what he or she reads"

You could call it a dogma.:p
 
Yeah, I guess. but I tend to never trust science fully, just a lot more than anecdote. "A Discordian is forbidden from believing what he or she reads"
Science doesn't have to be read... you could conduct the experiment yourself. :)

But of course you're right not to trust science fully: after all, science doesn't trust science fully. No statistical analysis will tell you with 100% certainty what the answer to a question is. It can tell you what, if the null hypothesis (in this case, no difference between the strains) were true, would be the chance that you'd get a difference in your sample of responses as large as you got; and it can also tell you (given how small an effect you'd be interested in, and how big your sample was) how likely it would be that you'd detect the effect, if an effect was there to be detected. This, though not full certainty of course, is vastly more than any number of anecdotes can tell us (because there's good reason to think that virtually all of those anecdotes could be subject to biases that would, in a controlled experiment, be relatively easy to avoid or take into account).
 
Last edited:
Another great response. You manage to convey in a paragraph what I mean to get at in a page. It's sad, I know ;) I'm willing to bet you did better in your statistical analysis courses than I did, huh? 99.5% of the courses I had in this area were basically how to use SPSS better and better.

My professor, fortunately, was really good with it and not bad at the teaching side of things- so when he wasn't flying around the country doing consulting, and having his do-nothing TA teach instead- so I really learned how to use the program. If I ever had to do any sort of analysis by hand though I'd be screwed. The TA would give us these small to huge data sets and a series of analyses to perform, copy and save the results to a .doc and submit for grading. Not exactly dynamic learning.

But like you said, you're able to figure just about anything relevant out.
 
Generally when someone on the internet resorts to quoting specific line after line of your argument you know they are frustrated and need to take things out of context to make a decent rebuttal.

The fact of the matter stands, the difference in strains has been recognized for decades, the burden of proof is on you to cast doubt on the well established norm. Not the other way around, the lack of a controlled study is not a strong enough reason to dismiss the current widely accepted knowledge. And the testimony of qualified experts is not a fallacy, it is a type of inductive argument, a rather strong one considering our court system employs expert witnesses regularly. The fallacy you are referring to occurs when the authority consulted does not have the expertise to make a judgment on a given subject, such as social institutions determining moral worth etc.

And I agree that your suggested method would be a great and relatively sound setup for the experiment. With the one exception that smoking and vaporization varies in the specific drugs delivered because some of the combustion byproducts may be active or the greater heat of smoking could lead to selectively greater decarboxylation of THCA. Also the content of vaporized cannabis largely depends upon the temperature of the vaporizer. But over all it is a sound design which accounts for many variables that inverts 'experiment' could not approach. But this really brings us to the question, why has no one conducted it if you are so convinced that the status quo belief should be challenged?

As for my criticism of the oral route it stands. 11-ho-thc is more than 10x the potency of THC so if it is in fact one of the only cannabinoids converted in vivo then the relevance of other cannabinoids modulating the intoxication may be greatly reduced in light of this potency change.

You can quote statistical analysis rules all you want, but most any practical and educated person would agree that the testimony of millions holds more weight than you assertion that a lack of controlled study should be reason enough to cast doubt. Not to mention the numerous other sources of corroborating pieces of evidence I have supported that you have not been able to answer. Once you have a study to contradict my position then we can seriously argue this, but anecdote is stronger than nothing which is all you can present right now.
 
Also it is rather clear to me that you guys have not smoked any top quality reefer or this argument would not have ever happened haha...
 
Science doesn't have to be read... you could conduct the experiment yourself.

Yeah, but I doubt anybody would give money and resources to a barely educated, crazy longhair like me to do it.

I know somebody who took an analysis course in university that the professor had nicknamed "how to lie using statistics"
 
Generally when someone on the internet resorts to quoting specific line after line of your argument you know they are frustrated and need to take things out of context to make a decent rebuttal.

Also it is rather clear to me that you guys have not smoked any top quality reefer or this argument would not have ever happened haha...

By your tone, you seem more frustrated than Hammilton or invert does. What it comes down to, is that your perception has been challenged, and so you have taken a defensive stance, leading to accusation. And that is not rational behavior, and neither is calling anecdote conclusive. I think all three of us simply don't have an opinion that we can call conclusive. We haven't ruled out the possibility, but the whole ground it stands on is flaky until someone turns up something more convincing.

I desire to keep a rational stance, and so approach the issue with doubt, which is central to being rational. I should have stayed out of it in the first place, because in all of drug culture, the strain and effect argument is one of the most heated debates founded on so much irrational assumption and cultural bias that it almost always turns into a "well you haven't had good herb" experience dicksizing contest after an enthusiast takes offense to their assumptions being challenged.

And owing to my doubting nature, even statistical data on effects in humans likely wouldn't fully convince me unless it was very overwhelming. Within a particular variety of plant, just growing it in a different location can make it chemically a hell of a lot different. And this has been proven through experimental data with countless species, just not cannabis due to the clandestine nature of it, which is unfortunate. Take into account the fact that an individual breeder is maintaining their individual line in an illegal industry with no strictly enforced quality control (even though I do respect the efforts of hard working cannabis breeders, don't get me wrong) and a white rhino or hashplant or whatever can be significantly different from the same varieties from another company in genetic terms, meaning that the chemical composition of the resin can vary widely even in a given variety. Now take other factors into account like region it was grown in if grown outdoors, specific conditions, soil composition or type of nutrient solution, and you have a very wide range of possible variance from grower to grower, seed supplier to seed supplier, which means to predict the specific results of a specific herb is just very unlikely to me. I don't care what people think about whether or not I've had good herb.

But remember, I am in fact an uneducated hick who never finished high school. I do know my plants though, and have been working with the plant kingdom my entire life.

Anyway, this horse is dead to me. No reason beating a dead horse. I'm out.

*walks out of thread*
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't surprise me if some cannabinoids have affinity for receptors that THC does not. There are certainly bioactive cannabinoids that aren't CB1 or CB2 agonists.
 
^ right on. There definitely needs to be more work done in this area to find out what the real medicinal benefits of cannabis are.

I'm all for legalization, but I think the medical marijuana laws are more the result of NORML's legal strategy than real science. Obviously marijuana has some very useful anti-emetic effects, and can relieve pressure caused by glaucoma, but beyond that I'm a bit unconvinced to its medical utility. Regardless, inhaling the crude combustion product of any plant can't be all that good for you.

I'm not saying cannabis doesn't help sick people, not by a long shot. I just think it should be legalized for recreational use, then studied to identify what mechanisms have medical utility. Unfortunately this type of research is really difficult with cannabis in Schedule I.

Interesting side note: Cannabis & THC (along with its synthetic analogues) are both schedule I. However Dronabinol, which is simply synthetic THC is Schedule III. How the same molecule can have both "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" (Schedule I) and "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" (Schedule III) is complete madness!!!
 
What? That's barely scratching the surface of cannabis's medicinal utility. That's forgetting what is the most dramatic of it's abilities: take a look at the anti-tumor / anti-cancer effects of CBD and other cannabinoids. That's got to be the most amazing aspect of it.

It also probably explains why it's so difficult to find any increase in cancer rates among even the heaviest cannabis smokers.
 
I believe the compounds in cannabis are full of medical potential. However, its legal status in the States is a huge barrier to research that could isolate which cannabiniods in what combinations have certain medicinal value. I remember the study in the Washington Post a few years back that was the first I'd read about the anti-cancer properties, but it was still only a correlation, which we all know does not imply causation. I just really think there needs to be a lot of work done. We, as a species, would be highly remiss for not exploring these potentially life-saving compounds.
 
Their is also active Delta-8-Tetrahedral-Cannabinoid in much smaller amounts then 9 in cannabis plants. The one we know and love is delta 9-THC
 
I believe the compounds in cannabis are full of medical potential. However, its legal status in the States is a huge barrier to research that could isolate which cannabiniods in what combinations have certain medicinal value. I remember the study in the Washington Post a few years back that was the first I'd read about the anti-cancer properties, but it was still only a correlation, which we all know does not imply causation. I just really think there needs to be a lot of work done. We, as a species, would be highly remiss for not exploring these potentially life-saving compounds.

I begin to feel like a broken record, because this is the answer to so many hundreds of things: That is why you don't get your science from the same place that delivers your news.

It's also why we have things like Pubmed / PubChem and the PLoS. Hopefully other "Science 2.0" activities will spread. There are other stop-gap measures though.

There is lots and lots of research on the anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic properties of various cannabinoids. Some of those links, as well as google will turn up dozens of well designed studies that yielded positive results.
 
Their is also active Delta-8-Tetrahedral-Cannabinoid in much smaller amounts then 9 in cannabis plants. The one we know and love is delta 9-THC

THCV is found in strains such as thai weed and durban poison and nepalese strains.
take a look at THE book by ed rosenthal

as noted both durban poison and thai weed are intensely psychedelic highs that are very stimulating and can induce high anxiety<38o<38o<38o:(:(:(
 
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.

How do you suppose to know that? For somebody propped up by a tripod of logical crutches, I found a supposed truth like that surprising.

I would guess that there have always been people who use belief as a form of manipulation, since the dawn of humanity. As long as there has been the concept of spirituality, likely has there also been those who use it as a tool for gain/control.
 
How do you suppose to know that? For somebody propped up by a tripod of logical crutches, I found a supposed truth like that surprising.

I would guess that there have always been people who use belief as a form of manipulation, since the dawn of humanity. As long as there has been the concept of spirituality, likely has there also been those who use it as a tool for gain/control.

It doesn't take much to figure this out. In socieities where animism prevails, there is usually no mechanism for those in control to profit from it's existance. There may be cases where a Shaman or other religious leader (though in many cases in the more primities animist societies there is no such position)

Also, in Native American societies today (The non-Christian group I have most experience with) there is very little in the way of indoctrination (and indeed, Christianity is becoming more and more prevalent) and in my experience, nothing in the way of profit motive. I'm not even aware of any "passing of the plate." I have occasionally heard of Shaman charging for healings, but I have never actually seen it.

Also, in Wiccan groups (which I also have some familiarity with), most practioners follow what they call "the solo path" or some variation thereof. In families where the parents are Wiccans, there may be some indoctrination of their children, but the majority in their ranks came to Wicca through their own 'searching' and decisions. For the vast majority, there exists no power structure that feeds on creating new members and keeping old members. Indeed, there is no formal (and barely even an informal) membership.

This is somewhat weakened by the fact that publishers like Llewellyn feed off of Wicca and Occult-related book sales. I don't think this changes the base of it though:

Human beings are intrinsically wired to believe in a diety or dieties. With all indications that the earliest religions were based in animism, and given the power structure, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to suggest that the first animists were not based in profit or power. The structure of animism doesn't function in a way that makes this very easy.

I would guess that there have always been people who use belief as a form of manipulation, since the dawn of humanity. As long as there has been the concept of spirituality, likely has there also been those who use it as a tool for gain/control.

That doesn't seem entirely likely. As I've noted above, animism's core 'tenets'- tenuous tenets, they may be- don't such manipulations easy, though.

Sure there were those who tried to do so, but spirituality certainly existed before the first person attempted to profit from it.

For somebody propped up by a tripod of logical crutches, I found a supposed truth like that surprising

A 'truth' as in capital-T Truth? Not quite, because obviously there's no way to know this for certain, but based upon what we know of early animist cultures and current animist cultures and other related religions, it's not much of a leap to make this statement

Next time put some more thought into what you want to post before you post it, then re-read it and decide if it's really worth saying. Hopefully you can maybe stay at least close to the topic next time.
 
Interesting side note: Cannabis & THC (along with its synthetic analogues) are both schedule I. However Dronabinol, which is simply synthetic THC is Schedule III. How the same molecule can have both "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" (Schedule I) and "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" (Schedule III) is complete madness!!!

Same thing with GHB and Xyrem. Good times.
 
spirituality certainly existed before the first person attempted to profit from it

Like I implied before, you don't have a clue yet you are acting like what you assume is guaranteed.

I never meant to propose that all spirituality was for profit, I meant that there is no reason to assume that one came before the other. If by profit you mean "money" then you are right, religion existed before "money", but gains of some sort have always been available from controlling people's beliefs. Would you argue that it is not intrinsic of humans to exploit resources?

You brought up a lot of stuff in your last post that had nothing to do with my comment. All the info relating to current practice is mute; we were talking belief "in dieties before anyone profited from it," not whether some spiritual practices are not for profit.

I don't expect to gain anything by continuing this blockheaded debate, I'm sure you don't either, the thread is all yours.
 
Top