Hacker News Reader

Comment by root_axis | Hacker News Reader

> Today people need to be reasonably sure that what they're getting will meet their needs, because for some one hit may send them spiraling in the totally wrong direction. A user with anxiety issues may need to entirely steer clear of sativas because they are known to cause anxiety attacks. But someone who needs to be around other people may need to avoid indicas because they are known to cause delayed responses and decreased social acumen.

What's the source for this, I'm genuinely interested? As far as I'm aware, this is more a marijuana folklore thing than an effect that science has verified.

View on HN

I can't comment on the latter though it may be dangerous to operate machinery or drive just like that's true with SSRIs. Then again, the same might be true with an upper, like Ritalin, or anti psychotics. But the reverse could also be true. Someone with f.e. ADHD who uses Ritalin might be able to be a better driver _due_ to the Ritalin.

As for the former,

1) its widely documented and I can personally attest that marihuana caused anxiety attacks, including one clear case of a psychosis, in numerous occasions.

2) It is also known that people who suffer from schizophrenia should stay clear from marihuana. The same's true if they have a relative who suffers from schizophrenia. Why? Elevated risks to trigger a schizophrenic episode

3) I worked in a Dutch coffeeshop and know that, to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned. There's also a lot of hybrids though, as well as some conflicting info. Decent website is Leafly [1]. I was wary to give tourists sativa, as well as spacecakes which we also sold. I recommended them different things instead (including: not buying). My boss didn't give a shit though, as long as people were 18+.

For a good movie about the subject of drug-induced psychosis, see "Das weisse Rauschen" (The White Sound) [2]. Although in this movie the drug which causes the trigger is "magic mushrooms" this movie still takes a good shot at what a drug-induced psychosis could look like.

[1] https://www.leafly.com/

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276617/

Sorry if my post was a little unclear, I am aware that some marijuana users sometimes experience anxiety as well as the other risks and symptoms you describe, I was specifically referring to the suggested disparate effects of indica vs sativa strains.

> to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned.

It's not the first time I've heard this idea, but I have never seen an authoritative source, only the suggestion from marijuana connoisseurs that it is the case. Studies have shown that almost all commercially available marijuana is mislabeled and that many popular marijuana strains are not necessarily chemically distinct despite evident morphological differences - that is to say, most people probably don't know what they're consuming so it may not be wise to rely on the wisdom of the crowd to vet these ideas.

Well, they'll always contain a % of THC and CBD. Together with their taste and freshness, people become a regular of a certain strain from a certain shop because then these factors are the most static.

If you check strains on e.g. Leafly you can see that most are hybrids, and you can also see their ancestry (how they came about). Although in the shop I worked, hybrids weren't sorted as such; all strains were sorted on effect. Clerks were smokers themselves, so they knew what they were selling, because they knew whether they'd get stoned or high. New strains were enthusiastically tested.

The Open Cannabis Project curates data from testing labs, the NIH, and elsewhere.

https://opencannabisproject.org/external-data-resources/

I have not seen the mislabeling studies you note. Most of the labels -- strain names -- are not intrinsically meaningful anyway.

w/r/t being chemically distinct, the research I've read show clear differences in cannabinoid and terpene composition between major strains, hybrids created from those, and within all of these per particular harvest, origin, conditions.

The pharmacological effects of those compositions on you won't be exact -- they provide guidance.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi...

(ibuprofen, gin, and brussel sprouts don't effect you and me exactly the same way, either, but we have the general idea of what's involved.)

there's more anecdotal evidence than hard scientific research available because cannabis has been consumed for 3,000 years, but it's been an illegal narcotic in the US for the last 60.

THC inhibits the GABA neurotransmitter. GABA is responsible for the "calmness" factor in the brain. Low levels of GABA cause anxiety, paranoia, etc. Certain strains have different terpenes profiles. Terepenes are responsible for the aroma of the flower. Some terpenes change the way THC is absorbed, including preventing the inhibition of the THC GABA effect, which is why terpenes are also responsible for the aromatherapy of a strain. Strains have different terpene profiles based on their genetic makeup.

That's really interesting. Do you know of any sources that list these sorts of properties for strains (and that are reliable/empirical)? I presume the tags on sites like Leafly that mark a strain 'calming' or 'good for depression' are anecdotal and not based in chemistry?

I think you need to go deeper because each batch can give a different profile so the strains only provide a guideline.

What you could do is map the smell to the terpene profile.

http://maryjanesdiary.com/terpenes/

Some empirical effects reasearch from the NIH: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi...

It's pretty common knowledge among heavy weed smokers that those strains have those effects. Sometimes science lags a bit behind ...

I don't know anything about pot, but it's pretty evident that conducting controlled studies hasn't been terribly easy, so maybe as that becomes more of a possibility, we'll learn something.

Yes, I’ve long said that if you can't trust the rigorously tested and surely unbiased observations of heavy weed smokers, what can you trust?

Science lags behind stoners. Duly noted.

In this case it's mainly attributable to the DEA's scheduling system. People have to rely on personal experience because there isn't proper research being done.

This is my greatest frustration around the use of drugs. I think it's ludicrous that more research isn't done on substances that millions of people take.

I don't think it's folklore but am not sure about scientific "proof". I also just heard on the radio yesterday an explanation that high THC content can cause those anxiety effects and the CBDs can balance it out, so in the future they might be marketed in terms of THC:CBD ratios. Interesting.

> in the future they might be marketed in terms of THC:CBD ratios

I don't know about marketing per se, but I was at a dispensary in a recreational state a couple of years back and the THC:CBD ratio was prominently displayed as part of each strain's description, and the staff seemed very well-versed with helpful advice for noobs on the expected effects.

It is true that this has entered marijuana folklore. Some people say that the strain type makes no difference to them, and others say that it definitely does.

I'd call them guidelines rather than scientifically-verified law. Just like other psychoactive substances, results can vary wildly among individuals. My anecdotal experiences do largely line up with the folklore, for whatever it's worth. It goes beyond cannabis, too. For me, drinking gin can be very dangerous because for some reason I get hammered after one or two drinks, whereas drinking scotch of the same proof does not affect me nearly as much.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about this, but I'm guessing that there won't be any really reliable / scientific sources for any of this.

It's been illegal for so long (and at the U.S. Federal level, still is) that I can't imagine there's been much research on this.

One datapoint, but I witnessed an anxiety attack on a first time cannabis user (who consumed homegrown indica - sativa are usually more difficult to grow indoor as they get taller).

My conviction is that all these theories on strains having such different effects is mostly BS. Until we have scientific evidence, I stay very skeptical.

> My conviction is that all these theories on strains having such different effects is mostly BS.

How scientific do you want your evidence to be? [0] It's pretty much a fact that different strains have different ratios of cannabinoids and terpenes, these can additionally be altered by the way the cannabis is cured and stored.

Badly cured cannabis still has lot's of chlorophyll in it, making it rough to smoke and changing its effect profile, many people get headaches/depressions from smoking such cannabis.

In that regard, your "one datapoint" is nothing but an anecdotal experience which can be explained by a number of reasons: People who are already prone to anxiety attacks can have their moods increased if they feel stressed out by the whole situation of being "the center of attention" for trying the first time. Especially with a high THC strain with barely any CBD in it to counter the THC effect [1]

Just like overfocusing on trying to "feel the effects" can give the user the impression he's not feeling any effects at all, which is something I've witnessed plenty of times with first-time users: They will be sitting there trying to focus on the effects, pretend they don't feel any, while not even realizing they are already on a small trip with their whole "Look at me I'm not feeling anything over here!" behavior, while they expected the effects to be something like seeing pink elephants roaming trough the room.

A lot of this has to do with decades-old stigma about the effects of cannabis forming a lot of users expectations about its effects.

[0] http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/6/966.full

[1] https://prohbtd.com/how-thc-and-cbd-interact

Reply on news.ycombinator.com