Yeah, I'm arguing this because I'm an old enough fart to remember when Indica came on the scene and everyone noticed the difference from the Equatorial Sativas available.
Some loved the buzz as is, many went to work breeding in Sativa, a much harder plant to grow in America.
I remember thinking of Indica as "bootleg pot". There was bootleg speed around at the time which was Ephedrine, Caffeine, and Phenylpropanolamine. Gave strong adrenergic effects but less dopamine tickling and so less euphoria. Without extensive knowledge, I likened the big, beautiful, Indica buds to that. Strong, but less euphoria. "Bootleg pot".
Anyway, at this point maybe we should add another species/subspecies/landrace, to the mix... Cannabis americanus subsp. indoorus.
The genetics are mixed as hell worldwide, actually.
Sorry if I was pedantic, I am finding your posts extremely interesting and I'll get off my soapbox now.
For what it's worth, when I was first bringing the topic up yesterday, I was also discussing it with my dad in person. He also mentioned the differences in sativa and indica cannabis from back in the day, but immediately conceded (on his own, with no suggestion or prodding from me) that it was possible that there was merely a difference in potency. I can't speak to that; however, I will say that what you describe as the difference here perfectly describes the difference between a lower potency high and a higher potency high to me, and I don't feel I can help but point that out given what my dad said. The effects of cannabis very much work in two ways running parallel for me: a seemingly linear dosage-response curve for effects that I would label as psychedelic or psychedelic-like, and a seemingly bell-shaped dosage-response curve for what I would label as motivational effects that run on the typical euphoric to dysphoric spectrum depending on the dosage, with the top of the bell being the most euphoric point. That is to say, when I use cannabis, seemingly no matter how high I dose it will just keep becoming more and more psychedelic-like with increasingly high dosages, but the euphoric effects will only appear at the lower levels of effect, whereas when I continue to increase the dosage, the euphoric effects will first drop off to where the motivational aspect of the high/trip is decidedly neutral, and at an even higher dosage, the experience will actually be quite dysphoric.
This sounds to me a lot like how you described indica as the "bootleg pot" - strong but less euphoria - and I do know for a fact that I can experience both the weaker but more euphoric highs and the stronger but less euphoric or even dysphoric trips from the same strain, because those are really my only two options right now. Ever since moving (to the state I'm in where cannabis is legal), the only two pieces of paraphernalia I have so far are a small, around $10 pipe, and a larger, nearly $200 bong, so I've experimented quite a bit using the same strains in both for comparison to see what I want to actually use on a regular basis. I've decided for the moment to basically just stick to the small pipe in almost all circumstances, because basically, that bong gives me such a potent hit with every single hit that no amount of hits in a pipe will ever get me as high as smoking any amount of hits in the bong does, and when I smoke a strain out of the pipe it is a less powerful trip but a very pleasant high, exactly what I want out of my typical, everyday sort of use of cannabis, whereas when I smoke the same strain out of the bong the trip is very powerful, but in a way that's no fun at all, and often explicitly feels bad in my body (not dangerous or anything of course, just bad). I'm actually someone who is very sensitive to the hallucinogenic effects of cannabis, and one of the last times I tried smoking out of that bong, I literally saw Satan in a clear hallucinatory vision of Hell. By contrast, if I hallucinate at all from smoking in the small pipe, it tends to just be like... some gentle flower visuals in my peripheral vision.
So, I just want to specify that I was not giving my opinion without first hearing that of someone who can share the same perspective as you, for what it's worth, even though I was again only actively thinking of how to behave with the current situation going forward myself. And, that same person entirely on their own expressed an opinion that could support my own thoughts about a potential lack of real difference between the two types of cannabis even back then, though again I'm not trying to say anything definitively about that now. Again for what it's worth, I followed up with my father today to share your views from this thread and he countered that he still thinks the idea that they were wrong about there being any true difference to start with is feasible. I won't press that anymore but just wanted to share that for the sake of added perspective.
I'm glad that you're enjoying the things that I have to say.
I do think there is enough of the "Sativa, Indica influence" still in the muddled genetics to be a rough guide for now albeit not always accurate.
I also agree that specific listings of cannabinoids and terpenes will be better and much more dependably accurate.
That also will very much facilitate getting a handle on what does what as to quality of high.
I wonder how much of the terpene effect is aromatherapeutic and how much is that they are basically a drug on their own.
I'm coming to realize that they simply have drug effects on their own (likely). Your posts are informing me of this.
I wish I was in a legal state. We might get to vote on that this November, but the Republican legislature has been blocking that every step of the way so far. So, we'll see.
Good luck on that.
I really can't express how great it is finally being in a legal state. I ended up just having to up and leave the one I was in rather than waiting for change but it was worth it.
Learning about the effects of terpenes convinced me to start making sure I actively smell all of my cannabis before smoking it again. I did that a lot when I was new to it, but then just kind of stopped as I aged out of the typical stoner habits I picked up while younger and it became more routine and background, but when I started smelling the strains actively again, I did feel like it increased my enjoyment of them at least a little bit. It's hard to say what the actual reason for that is though of course, I could just be making the whole experience more pleasant for myself again like those stoner rituals can do in general.
There is plenty of pharmacological research on a lot of these terpenes, even if not directly related to their role in the effects (if any) of cannabis. It seems largely undeniable that they do have the potential to have psychoactive effects, plenty of them bind to enough receptors that would allow that to happen. I don't know to what extent they would do so when absorbed in the dosages that would be gotten from either smelling or inhaling cannabis though, like how much that compares to something like aromatherapy or ingesting essential oils, or whether or not they are susceptible to breakdown from the flames when cannabis is smoked, or anything like that. I sure do feel like the most easily recognizable differences from one strain of cannabis to the next other than look and feel are smell and taste, and the latter especially is true still after smoking it, so... maybe they are surviving and there's enough of them to at least cause some receptor activation? I'll wait to see the scientific studies to say anything for certain though, but I do find it interesting.
Yeah, I'm familiar with 69ron in all his incarnations and all his handles. His "conversion of LSA to LSH" stuff doesn't seem to have many confirming it, at least dependably. But I find it fascinating due to the distinct possibility that fresh seeds do contain high LSH and thus might be the real thing the shamans depended on.
I actually planted a Morning Glory I saw at the nursery this year and was going to try immature seeds, but the deer liked the plant. With the deer mafia where I live, that will probably be a write off now.
Anyway. Great convo.
Yeah, I don't know much about that LSA chemistry, and I haven't seen much definitive information about it, although some people certainly seem to think it's real. The main controversy of his I know of is the essential oil tripping, which many people doubt. Although, I do have to say that I have personally tripped on nutmeg essential oil and it was highly active for me, although that doesn't really surprise me given that nutmeg itself is widely recognized to be active, and I didn't use any sort of other oils as enzyme inhibitors or anything like that to try it. I still one day intend to try some of the other stuff like elemi essential oil to see if I get any effect out of it. A lot of people seem to think 69ron just made a lot of stuff up, although that's personally not the feeling I got from him when I saw him talking about this stuff. I feel like it's more likely that he was just a guy who was really sensitive to getting effects from different drugs (something I also once saw him say in some of his oldest posts before said controversies) and a lot of people just weren't able to relate to what he was getting out of them. I won't say anything more confidently than that yet though.
I am enjoying the conversation as well.
Anyone else get the hunch that these allegedly psychoactive or modulatory terpenes in cannabis are really about as active as some other herb? Lemon balm, mint, thyme or whatever. Terpenes are abundant in plants including staple foods and are generally not considered psychoactive. When they happen to be found in the same plant as THC, people start noticing. We should entertain the possibility that this whole discourse is over-analysis driven by activism and commercial hype coupled with the very real psychoactivity of THC.
Then again, learning to perceive and work with subtle plant medicine generally could be good therapy for our dualistic, materialistic western culture. Maybe the weed hype is mostly a convenient vehicle for that mindframe.
I think the sentence "When they happen to be found in the same plant as THC, people start noticing." is underselling the situation. They're not just found in the plant, they are typically ingested in decidedly different ways when consuming cannabis compared to when eating foods. DMT also does nothing when eaten but the situation is very different when you smoke it. All kinds of things are possible when you skip first-pass metabolism.
That being said, I've also seen many reports where people ingested essential oils containing these terpenes and described very explicit psychoactive effects from them, from things passing as full-blown highs (not that complex, but noteworthy) to things that were supposedly actually mildly trippy (I remember someone describing pine essential oil which contains some pinene terpenes that cannabis also does as producing "flame-like visuals"). I even once read an article totally detached from anything to do with the drug scene or any specific known trip reporters about someone who was kicked out of a MLM essential oil convention for acting deranged and raving to everyone that they had discovered the secret that lime essential oil feels like cocaine if you drink it like it was going to be some big revelation for the world. However, using essential oils of fruits known to be high in these specific terpenes I can only imagine is providing the users with what would probably be considered rather high dosages, in comparison to something like smoking whatever amount of them exists in cannabis buds. Then again, maybe those high oral dosages aren't doing anything but helping for some to get by first-pass metabolism as well? But I don't want to speculate too much on that.
I have to say, it's generally pretty obvious to me that at least like 90% or more of the cannabis high is generally just coming from THC itself (even that feels like a low estimate to me, frankly). I don't actually think anyone is really debating that. I think it's pretty well-established that any non-THC component to the cannabis high is only playing some relatively very small modulatory role at best. I can say with absolute confidence that when I don't actively pay attention to what a cannabis high is doing to me, I don't really notice any differences enough for them to stand out or be memorable, I just notice the same similarities I notice between every cannabis high and that are the things I actually primarily care about using cannabis for in the first place. However, I'd be lying if I said I haven't had many strains in my life where I didn't stop and think, "You know, this one actually feels noticeably a bit different than most." I don't really doubt that there are differences, I'm just saying that I still think it's pretty clear that the effects are still mostly THC basically every time, and I don't think that's really in question. But in an ideal world where luxury is an option, why not be open to having control over even the slightest of differences, if you (anyone) really feel that it makes your life that much better? Although in the same vein, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of thinking of them as all different and not worrying about paying attention to it anyway because variety is the spice of life, the little differences like even just taste and smell and look are part of what I enjoy about having access to so many cannabis strains these days.
On the other end of the scale, just to put it out there, I've never not questioned the entire concepts of terpenes playing any role in cannabis either. I don't think it's really a controversial suggestion, people didn't even pay attention to them at all in the cannabis plant until pretty recently and most people didn't really seem to think there needed to be much more of an explanation than THC itself, and maybe other cannabinoids too. But I'm open to seeing what the science and scientists have to say.
Yes they could. Is there any evidence though?
I've never noticed any modulatory effect from CBD. But i'm just one guy. It could even be a case of anti-placebo on my part. I'm aware of the research on minor cannabinoids, but no corresponding research on terpenes. I've found research concerning medical, but not psychoactive or CB1-modulatory, properties of terpenes.
I'm skeptical leaning, given how susceptible humans are to illusion. Even a mere symbol or concept can elicit effects mimicking psychoactivity.
There is actually quite a lot of evidence that these terpenes are pharmacologically active, even if that's not specifically research being done on cannabis itself. Linalool has known anti-seizure effects that I believe involve glutamate and GABA channels. Myrcene has been investigated a lot for its analgesic effects. Limonene, I believe, has been shown to interact with 5-HT1A receptors, like CBD. Caryophyllene is known to be a CB2 receptor agonist. I think pinene is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor.... This is all off the top of my head but I'm fairly certain that's all accurate.
Whether or not there's evidence this makes a difference to the effects of cannabis yet I do not know, but there's definitely enough evidence to suggest that they
could have an effect.
I actually wouldn't be surprised if there is some research out there by now, or coming out soon. People have been interested in the role of terpenes in cannabis for many years now, and one article I posted on the previous page was explicitly an interview with a known cannabis scientist talking about how he believes researching terpenes is the way to go, and that interview is seven years old. I bet there's more out there than you might think, but I'd have to actually look into it myself again, it's been a pretty good while since the last time I did.
