Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
namkha

THC and CBD in drug cannabis strains

60 posts in this topic
Well, I dunno. Why change it all around, after all these years? For me, its always bee easy to grasp: Indica = Hash type plants, broad leaflet, squat and skunky to the smell, stoney body buzz. Sativa = equatorial plants, thin leaf blades, lanky and tall, racey and cerebral head rush, sometimes very psychadelic. I just cant see why we should change all this aroud. For years we've known what we mean by Indica and Sativa. We none of us grow for rope, so what is going on here?

Sorry namkha, don't mean to derail the thread. It just puzzles the heck out of me why we should all now change our understanding of things. I just can't call some finest Nigerian or Congo "Indica", because to me, quite simply, it is not. It is "Sativa".

:spliff:

ya know ,they told columbus ,the earth is flat too...

hmm lol

Share this post


Link to post
ya know ,they told columbus ,the earth is flat too...

hmm :spliff:

Your point being what, precisely?

Are you suggesting that Hillig is on the same level as Pythagoras? If so, do tell us why.

Edited by Arnold Layne

Share this post


Link to post
ya know ,they told columbus ,the earth is flat too...

hmm :unsure:

Your point being what, precisely?

Are you suggesting that Hillig is on the same level as Pythagoras? If so, do tell us why.

NO I am suggesting that you keep an open mind...

and arnold please try not to be so defensive

Share this post


Link to post

Not being defensive, I have nothing to defend.

But you seem to have! What exactly is with the:

NO

No ... what??? NO ... point??

Look, I'm interested, that's all. Why do you think Hillig is correct, if you do? Its a huge revision of current understanding, with enormous ramifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Not being defensive, I have nothing to defend.

But you seem to have! What exactly is with the:

NO

No ... what??? NO ... point??

Look, I'm interested, that's all. Why do you think Hillig is correct, if you do? Its a huge revision of current understanding, with enormous ramifications.

I do not know if he is correct or not,

but I do know that he had the ability,funding,license, to do the research ,and wrote and published his findings...

so why would this be so hard to believe...?

and NO means just that

No,no...

No was in reference to your first question,

thats why I quoted it...

Are you suggesting that Hillig is on the same level as Pythagoras?

No, I am suggesting that you keep an open mind

ok?

Share this post


Link to post
but I do know that he had the ability,funding,license, to do the research ,and wrote and published his findings...

so why would this be so hard to believe...?

Who said it was (hard to believe)?

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I do see ramifications, though.

A question: Skunk No.1: Indica, Sativa, or Hybrid? The original breeders selected equatorials (Columbian Gold, Mexican) and non-equatorials (Afghanistan) to produce a hybrid with specific traits they wished to see. They worked on producing a 75% Sativa/Indica hybrid.

If Hillig is followed, our current understanding of this goes out the window. Skunk becomes just "Indica". Yes? Or have I got that wrong?

From a growers' point of view, it becomes that much harder to see the reasoning behind the selections that have gone on in breeding a particular strain, if we follow Hillig. I happen to prefer growing Sativa heavy hybrids. But in a world of Hillig's PoV, it would become all but impossible to find such strains. Vaugue descritions of the psychoactve potential are really not the same, nor as useful as declaring a strain "x% Sat/Indica".

Hillig may be right, he may be wrong. There may not even be a right and wrong. But if he is followed, the implications are rather large.

Take a plant like "Afghani". It produces a squat plant, with huge resin production and wide leaf blades. Then take, say, a "Malawi". Hugely tall, lanky and very different in appearance. The high from both is profoundly different. Yet Hillig (and I am only going by what has been said here, as I mentioned ealier, his own words are incomprehensible to me, not being a trained Botanist) suggests that both are "Indica", because they are both "Drug" plants.

Is this not confusing?

Share this post


Link to post
but I do know that he had the ability,funding,license, to do the research ,and wrote and published his findings...

so why would this be so hard to believe...?

Who said it was (hard to believe)?

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I do see ramifications, though.

A question: Skunk No.1: Indica, Sativa, or Hybrid? The original breeders selected equatorials (Columbian Gold, Mexican) and non-equatorials (Afghanistan) to produce a hybrid with specific traits they wished to see. They worked on producing a 75% Sativa/Indica hybrid.

If Hillig is followed, our current understanding of this goes out the window. Skunk becomes just "Indica". Yes? Or have I got that wrong?

From a growers' point of view, it becomes that much harder to see the reasoning behind the selections that have gone on in breeding a particular strain, if we follow Hillig. I happen to prefer growing Sativa heavy hybrids. But in a world of Hillig's PoV, it would become all but impossible to find such strains. Vaugue descritions of the psychoactve potential are really not the same, nor as useful as declaring a strain "x% Sat/Indica".

Hillig may be right, he may be wrong. There may not even be a right and wrong. But if he is followed, the implications are rather large.

Take a plant like "Afghani". It produces a squat plant, with huge resin production and wide leaf blades. Then take, say, a "Malawi". Hugely tall, lanky and very different in appearance. The high from both is profoundly different. Yet Hillig (and I am only going by what has been said here, as I mentioned ealier, his own words are incomprehensible to me, not being a trained Botanist) suggests that both are "Indica", because they are both "Drug" plants.

Is this not confusing?

Skunk1 is a Hybrid of course you know that...

it will always be a hybrid, no matter what its phenotypical expression shows, now you know that too. {phenotype}

its genectics will never change unless another strain is introduced...{genotype}

Afghani plants produce both Wide leaf wld and narrow leaf varieties nld...

I know this for a fact,dont need hillig to tell me that.

I have both.

Arnold ,I honestly feel that you are baseing your opinions on dutch hybrid cannabis,which is not what it once was...

I have smoked Pure Thai,in Thailand, it will knock you out cold...like a valium

I have smoked Indian Ganja on the Island of Sri Lanka...it too would make the body buzz and the head melt.

neither of these are thin leaved..both medium wide...

are they Sativa or Indica?

Thai ,South Indian...?

I always thought them sativa too... but really how the hell would I know for sure?

Im no freaking scientist,I just grow dope for 30 years...

:unsure:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

hang on am i getting this bit right....up to a FULL 9% cbd????i thought it only measured in 0.9? with the decimal point????

wow heavy stuff!

is that true as well theres 1 in there that has 14%?!!!

wow what is it!! iwant some!

Edited by DoubleDee
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Im no freaking scientist,I just grow dope for 30 years...

:unsure:

In that, my friend, we are alike. Non-scientific, wrinkly, old growers the pair of us!

I am only asking questions, making some observations. Like you, over 3 decades and I still get confused. I just want to understand what gain there is from changing to a Hilligian PoV? Is it really needed?

Oh, yes: Thanks! You've just reminded me how old I am. My first grow was 37 years ago now. Eeek.

And I love the look of your SSH on your "homepage". I must ask you more about that, in another thread maybe sometime huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Im no freaking scientist,I just grow dope for 30 years...

:unsure:

In that, my friend, we are alike. Non-scientific, wrinkly, old growers the pair of us!

I am only asking questions, making some observations. Like you, over 3 decades and I still get confused. I just want to understand what gain there is from changing to a Hilligian PoV? Is it really needed?

Oh, yes: Thanks! You've just reminded me how old I am. My first grow was 37 years ago now. Eeek.

And I love the look of your SSH on your "homepage". I must ask you more about that, in another thread maybe sometime huh?

it would be my honor to discuss tips and tricks with you arnold...

:yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how much a phenotype matters when it comes to chemotype.. but a lot of people call what looks like an afghanica ( what most would call an indica ) a sativa because there's a head high. the high doesn't matter in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

from where I am coming from i.e. about 1 year of indoor growing and 12 years of traveling - mostly in Asia - but also SAmerica, Africa and Caribbean --- the Hillig thing works quite well - it fits with what I am seeing on the ground, unlike the Western/Dutch indoor sativa/indica thing which does not fit at all

if you follow the Western/Dutch "sativas give you an up heady trippy high" thing, then take Thailand as an example

in the North nr. Burma you get plants with pretty big dense buds and medium-thin leaflets which have a very heady dizzy up and trippy high... the buds are not particularly loose in the Northern strains, quite dense

so far that nearly fits

but then in the Northeast nr. to Lao you get the brown "chocolate" strains with a heavy stupefying stone --- not lowland though - Isaan is on a plateau... buds are looser though, presumably as we are further south nearer the tropics

but I have had Lao strains from n.r the Mekong which had massive calyxes and a knock you down stupour stone, more than any other landrace I have smoked except some sieved blonde from Khyber Agency (sat or ind I don't know)

anyway, all of the Thais and Laos are "sativas" according to the standard classification used by westerners - yet the effects vary greatly from the Dutch stereotype, as do the phenos ---

personally it makes more sense to me to call any SEAsian drug strains ganja indicas ---

as for Afghanistan and Pakistan --- in the Hillig sense you find both WLD and NLD indicas there

according to the Dutch Western definition a real Afghan is one which knocks you on the head and leaves you heavy and fuzzy - it should be short, with short internodes

and yet look at any old school book on Afghanistan and you will see that the most prized Afghan hash was one which has a heady euphoric effect, mellow but not too heavy.... I will back that up with quotes in a following post... it fits with my experience of smoking the best Mazar-i-Sharif I could find

and some Mazar strains can reach up to 3m or more --- NWFP strains can be creeper sativa plants with narrow leaflets and a low profile

I coould give many more examples of how what you find on the ground fails to fit with the Western/Dutch sativa/indica thing

so basically the main reason I chose to follow Hillig's definition is that it fits what I have found traveling between Central and SEAsia across the Himalaya

oh yeah - I would like to copy out Clarke's paras on the probable way that the Afghan strains of the 70s emerged - if I remember right it is something like this"

the short squat wide-leaved classic Afghan as we think of it is a desert landrace - evolved with short internodes and wide leaves in order to slow down water transpiration and direct night condensation to the centre of the plant

tall drug "sativa" NLD cultivars as recorded by earlier Russian botanists were already in cultivation around the Oxus/Amu Darya in the late 19th cent

migrating Turks from Kasghar etc. hybridised wild WLD indicas with existing NLD indicas....

feral WLD indicas would already have been semi-cultivated by kuchi nomads etc. anyway who used them for medicine

I'll find some modern links to threads showing the kind of plants you find wild in places like Swat and Khyber --- they are WLD indicas... as also in a famous pic of Evans Schultes crouched over a wild plant near Kandahar

if I have got Hillig right, the reason Cannabis sativa - in the sense of Hemp - should be seen as a separate species from drug cannabis is to do with it's DNA --- centuries and breeding have given it a different genetic code - it lacks the code (the BtBt allele or BtBd allele) which is needed to produce the stuff which gets you high - THC

Edited by namkha

Share this post


Link to post
hang on am i getting this bit right....up to a FULL 9% cbd????i thought it only measured in 0.9? with the decimal point????

wow heavy stuff!

is that true as well theres 1 in there that has 14%?!!!

wow what is it!! iwant some!

med users should certainly want some

but if you want it to get high it won't be much use - CBD doesn't really get you high, but it has the most useful medical effects cf. Raphael Mechoulam

Share this post


Link to post
Take a plant like "Afghani". It produces a squat plant, with huge resin production and wide leaf blades. Then take, say, a "Malawi". Hugely tall, lanky and very different in appearance. The high from both is profoundly different. Yet Hillig (and I am only going by what has been said here, as I mentioned ealier, his own words are incomprehensible to me, not being a trained Botanist) suggests that both are "Indica", because they are both "Drug" plants.

Is this not confusing?

Hey Arnold,

I think the Western-Dutch sativa/indica thing works fine when confined to what is available from most seedbanks - but it is IME it is useless when you start looking at traditional strains in their homelands ---- which make up the overwhelming % of the cannabis in the world, and the overwhelming % of cannabis biodiversity

Hillig's classification, for me at least, is much more accurate when applied to historic varieties

Edited by namkha

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I don't disagree at all namkha - I can see exactly what you're saying and it certainly does make absolute sense, as do Scorpion's observations.

I think what I am saying is that its going to confuse some, when the read the strain descriptions on seed packs.

:wassnnme: You have clearly travelled much more than I have you lucky so and so! Envious? No, just a gentle shade of green :(

Edited by Arnold Layne

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0