If you look at the actual results of lab testing, as reported by the same sellers touting the “sativa gets you high, indica makes you mellow” line, you will see that there is absolutely no difference in the actual cannabanoid content by varietal. Individual strains will differ (although not consistently), but there is no correlation between whether a strain is labeled sativa or indica and what the cannabanoid content is. Until the recently-developed CBD-heavy strains became available, all strains had about fifty times as much THC as CBD, regardless of varietal, and again, the differences didn’t correlate with varietal anyway, even though the same websites listing the actual percentages would insist that indica strains had more CBD relative to THC. Now we have actual CBD-heavy strains with more CBD than THC, and guess what? They’re labeled sativa.
In short, the actual cannabinol content matters (but the testing results for a given strain vary widely between growers, sellers, and even individual samples based on cultivation, storage, etc.) The whole indica/sativa thing, despite what people swear they can tell from smoking it, is pure bullshit, and I won’t believe otherwise until I see a double blind test proving it.
You want peer reviewed studies? You think that just because the US is backward on the subject that absolutely nobody is studying it? Have you heard anything regarding the endocannabinoid system and how it works? Because a lot of doctors and scientists are finding out some amazing things about it.
Cannabis Science, news archive thereof, developing different cannabinoid profiles to treat HIV, cancer and other conditions, has links to about 800 peer reviewed studies if you want to really fall down the rabbit hole.
National Cancer Institute, includes many peer reviewed studies and articles regarding cannabis use in cancer patients and tumor regulation and cell apoptosis.
WebMD has links to peer reviewed studies and has had since 2010, had anyone bothered to take even a cursory look.
All of these are from the first page results of a Google search. In case it’s too esoteric to figure out, the search terms are “peer reviewed cannabis studies.” I suggest that all the oh-so-non-threadshitting “CITE!!!” squawkers go read every single link in these sites before coming back to insist there’s been no research done. In fact, cannabis is probably about THE hottest subject for research due to the way the endocannabinoid system works–it’s been poorly understood and every study undertaken has provided some interesting information regarding how cannabis, cannabidiols and cannabinoids affect health conditions.
And yes, there is a correlation between different strains and effects, which would be an interesting subject if the opinionated know nothings were to educate themselves BEFORE blatting away and demonstrating the abysmal levels of their ignorance.
I’m betting some of the sour diesel I’ve been enjoying would mellow the moderators the fuck out. Personal observation, n=1, anecdote and all, pass to the left.
Yes, it really really matters, since different strains have different effects.
Utter nonsense, since the field is huge, and many studies are ongoing. Certain strains, known for being more sedative than intoxicating, led to studies that resulted in new drugs being licensed, with double blind studies in Phase III being done. CBD is just one of the many non-intoxicating substances being researched.
As well as the evidence that research was being done since 1945, just using PubMed. Just click last to see the oldest studies listed there.
12,760 papers alone on PubMed.
The draft genome study from 2011 has produced a ton of information, including how the different strains produce different amounts and different compounds, giving hard evidence for the great differences in strains.
That may be true, in regards to an unregulated and non peer reviewed non-medical advice from a pot head, but that does not mean the differences are not known, scientifically.
But it’s all relative. In the US cannabis is a schedule 1 drug.
[QUOTE=DEA]
Schedule I
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
I have a friend whose area of research is pharmacology. Grant money is how he pays for much of what he does. Money to work on Schedule 1 drugs is difficult to obtain.
Do you have any cites on peer reviewed studies the differential effectiveness of different brand cultivars?
The 2011 study you posted was looking at the difference between hemp and a specific cultivar of marijuana, not between two different marijuana brands . I could believe that the different cultivars have been accessed for differential THC concentrations, but I would be surprised if a study of the effectiveness of one strain vs another in terms of treating sleep disorders has been published.
I wish they would change the names. Going to a “drug store” looking for chemotherapy relief, and being prescribed something with a silly name is weird.
Just as a side note, why are some asking for cites that different plants breed and cultivated in different manners have different effects? I’d be more surprised if they didn’t, it would make no sense at all.
Because that’s not the way science or medicine work. First of all, just because something is scientifically plausible doesn’t mean it’s true. Second, which strains are effective for which conditions? Unless you do the research, you won’t really know.
Well I don’t mind people asking for cites that substance X cures illness Y, that makes sense, it is the idea that for some reason every marijuana plant would have the same effect, and that this position would be somehow the default in lack of a cite.
Also, obviously if something is “true” after it has been scientifically “proven” then it has to have been true before that too. It’s also pretty obvious that the scientific community has its own agendas and rules that it has to play by. I’m not buying the meme that “science” has a monopoly on reality. We as humans have been exploring this world for quite a while, and though I like the scientific method I don’t think it’s the only way to explore or understand this universe. As far as I know science does not have all the answers, and especially not the interesting ones.
The scientific method was devised because there are numerous ways one can be mislead or deceive oneself. This thread isn’t really about that, but to promote self-experimentation as the equivalent of controlled, peer-reviewed studies is comical.
So if a study shows you that doing X will help you with Y, and you do X but your problem with Y persists, do you keep doing it because the study said it works and you assume that you’re just tricking yourself? Or if you do Z and it helps with Y, do you stop doing it if a study shows it doesn’t work?
I know it sucks because it’s such a nice idea that there’s an optimal belief system or method that can solve everything, but nothing fits that description. Not even the scientific method. It’s good for a lot of stuff, but it’s not perfect and more importantly, it doesn’t make other methods invalid. It’s just a meme.
The basic thing with the strains is like alcohol or any other drug. They affect different people in different ways. Lots of sleep aids don’t work for me. Trazadone works like a charm for me, but I know a lot of people who tried it and had problems. None of this is an absolute. I don’t like Oxycodone. It doesn’t help as much as it should and it makes me way too druggy. CBD, Codeine and Flexerill all have more positive results for me.
So in that respect, no, science cannot at this time tell me what works for me. They can try things on me until something works. That’s the way it works for a great many people.
So while we’re being skeptics, let’s admit that there’s a problem with all meds and not try to hold this one to a standard none of the rest achieve.
…and the the big variable in pain management is the subjective aspect and how that applies to many various different types of pain. It’s not a clear-cut analysis at all. The fact that cannabis works at all for certain people under certain conditions is telling.
to make myself clear(er).