What's new
By:
GrowWeedEasy.com
You're browsing as a guest. Sign up to join the conversation, share your grows, and get help from thousands of fellow growers — it's free and takes less than a minute.

FYI - The Cannabis sativa Versus Cannabis indica Debate: An Interview-Ethan Russo, MD

Very interesting indeed. Yup: THC is THC, but the subtlties and surprises are in the terpenes!!!

Here's something quite similar that ProjectCBD put out: https://www.projectcbd.org/science/t.../smell-mystery
And two more articles from High Times: https://hightimes.com/grow/understan...ica-vs-sativa/
https://hightimes.com/grow/the-truth...s-and-sativas/

And finally, Mahlberg's article on Speciation: https://www.realhemp.com/wp-content/...n-Cannabis.pdf It's the best article, but dense and technical. DanofdangerParacelsus I would be very interested to know what you think of this paper. Of course I couldn't understand all the data and charts, but I get the gist of what the research demonstrates. If I understand correctly, C. indica was the species originally used for drug purposes.

Reviewing all this information inspired me to purchase some terpenes to add to my tinctures: myrcene, linalool, nerolidol and humulene. Can't wait to experiment!!!
 
Last edited:
From the interview I found this exchange to be spot on,
quote

"Some users describe the psychoactive effects of Cannabis indica and sativa as being distinctive, even opposite. But are they really? Beyond self-reports from users, is there any hard evidence for pharmacologically different species of Cannabis?

Dr. Russo: There are biochemically distinct strains of Cannabis, but the sativa/indica distinction as commonly applied in the lay literature is total nonsense and an exercise in futility. One cannot in any way currently guess the biochemical content of a given Cannabis plant based on its height, branching, or leaf morphology. The degree of interbreeding/hybridization is such that only a biochemical assay tells a potential consumer or scientist what is really in the plant. It is essential that future commerce allows complete and accurate cannabinoid and terpenoid profiles to be available.." End Quote
also his support to identify THCV, cannabidivarin, cannabichromene, cannabigerol, percentages of concentration and provide it to consumers. He actually widens the Sativa/Indica argument and denies Cannabis as a single species, mentioning up to four: Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis afghanica (or kafiristanica)

I will take the time to read the other studies you provided alltatup but I'll need to have my dictionary and read some parts again and again till it sinks in. I'm learning a lot of new technical scientific terminology and I'm starting to need a score card to tell the players apart LOL.
 
Last edited:
From what I understood after one reading of Mahlberg with all the technical parts skipped, originally C.sativa was used for hemp and was not psychoactive; C.indica was the only medicinal/pharmaceutical species. Of course, there is no written record of ancient hybridization. So C.indica was the OG--not sativa.
 
I am not sure if you caught that Dr. Ethan Russo the Subject of this interview is the same author who wrote
"Cannabis in India: ancient lore and modern medicine"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top