Talk:Cannabis sativa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Plants (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cannabis (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cannabis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cannabis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Sources[edit]

Taken from Talk:cannabis to explain the existence of this article. Please see this and Talk:Cannabis/Archive 1 Talk:Cannabis/Archive 2 for the sources and discussions of this article. Squiquifox 18:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Merge?[edit]

I am thinking Hemp could be merged with Cannabis sativa, perhaps with the title Cannabis sativa (hemp) or Hemp (Cannabis sativa). The merged article would avoid detailed discussion of legal issues, including instead references/links to Legal issues of cannabis. Also, it would include material on cultivation for drug/medicinal purposes, but would avoid detailed discussion of health/medicinal issues by using references/links to Medicinal marijuana, Cannabis: Health issues and Cannabis (drug). Laurel Bush 16:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Incorrect statement[edit]

from the page: C. sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa

Correct name: Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa

This taxon includes two types of Cannabis cultivated for drug production, commonly referred to by Cannabis aficionados as "sativa" and "indica".

Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa, would never, ever be called an Indica by a Cannabis aficionado. In fact that suggestion is almost comical. Sativa is the genus for all of them, yes, but a subsp. sativa var. sativa strain of Cannabis is not even remotely close to sativa subsp. indica. If no one objects here, I'll modify this appropriately in a few weeksKVND 04:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talkcontribs)

Proposed split of cannabis article[edit]

This article could be split 2 ways. One for the plant biologically, and the other for the affect of cannabis on human culture. Squiquifox 23:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, split into Cannabis sativa, Cannabis_(drug), and Cannabis_(law). Split Cannabis_(drug) into more subsections if needed. Cacycle 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will split it into Cannabis sativa and Cannabis_(drug), and make cannabis a disambiguation page with connections to both articles. Squiquifox 17:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The split has now taken place, and needs a little tidying up, whicjh I will do some of. Please do not undo the work I did. Squiquifox 17:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sativa/Indica/Ruderalis[edit]

This is one of the most in-depth discussions I have seen on the taxonomical differences between the 'species', though the subject isn't new to me. Anyone know if a 'cannabis indica' defense has ever been used in a legal case? Pure bred indica technically isnt cannabis sativa, thus not illegal.

As far as I know, it has been attempted but the US government does not recognize the variety "indica". For law enforcement purposes in the U.S. all Cannabis is regarded as sativa. Countries such as Hungary that grow (fiber) hemp recognize indica as a different (drug) variety, since certain versions of sativa are legal, whereas indica is forbidden.

I have a problem with the article, by the way. As far as I know, it is misleading to state that sativa thrives in hot and dry climates with indica thriving in cool and damp climates. It is common knowledge that indica varieties originated in present day Afghanistan, and that region is clearly hot and dry during the growing season. Sativa thrives in regions such as Thailand, Brazil, Jamaica, and Colombia, which are hot and wet. A more reasonable statement would be that indica tolerates cold and humidity better, and needs a shorter growing season to mature, with varieties thriving in the Pacific Northwest (USA and Canada). Evidence supporting this data can be found on various cultivation websites as well as in the books Marijuana Botany and Hashish! by Robert Connell Clarke.--OOGIE 22:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must challenge the above statement due to experience with this plant, both Sativa and Indica varieties, although not Ruderalis. Sativa is grown extensively in Australia, which is mostly arid and dry, with a low average rainfall (overall). With the exception of ruderalis, from experience, Sativa is quite apt at adapting to harsh conditions, such as poor soil and low rainfall. Indica requires more care and attention, in my experience. Indica will not 'thrive' in dry conditions with poor soil and little nutrients. It is also false to my knowledge that it 'needs' any length of season to mature. These species, excluding the auto-flowering Ruderalis, flower when the daylength becomes less than 12-13 hours per day of sunlight (During Autumn/Fall or Winter). Indicas will usually mature within 8 to 10 weeks after the first signs of flowering occur, whereas the Sativa takes around 12-14 weeks to mature, sometimes longer. When the daylight hours are longer than 13 hours, as in Spring and Summer, Sativa and Indica will remain in a 'vegetative' state, that is, the plants will not produce flowers, only leaves and branches/stems. During flowering, plant growth slows, particularly late in flowering, and especially with the Indica variety. Ruderalis is an exception to the other two species, in that daylegth does not determine whether or not the plant will flower (placing an Indica or Sativa in an area with less light per day will induce flowering). Ruderalis will flower around 8-10 weeks after germination, regardless of daylength. Ruderalis will flower under continuous light, whereas Indica and Sativa will not. Indica, in my experience, seems to be intolerant of humidity during flowering, since its thick, compact flowers retain moisture and can encourage botrytis and other fungi which are detrimental to the flowers and plant. Cannabis Sativa, however, has a much more sparse flower and can tolerate excess moisture, and thrives in equatorial conditions.

This is from memory, though, and I am open to debate. I only wish to represent truthful information.

Also the Order is inconsistent with the article on the Cannabaceae family, which claims that Urticales are now Rosales. Some caring person should make it consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.50.110 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Genus/species confusion[edit]

The opening paragraph discusses the genus where the article is about Cannabis sativa, a species. Surely this should be changed? --Oldak Quill 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this article seems to be about Cannabis (genus), not Cannabis sativa. Maybe I'll get bold and rename it next time I'm here. Somegeek 18:06, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
I've moved some of the obvious generic material to the genus page Cannabis; I suspect more should follow - MPF 10:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve say it is hippt shit too, don't ya mate (sat next to me now, stoned)

Delete article? Or make a redirect?[edit]

Is there anything now in the article which is not also in Cannabis or Cannabis (drug)? Should it be now a redirect to Cannabis? Laurel Bush 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC).

Cannabis is a plant genus. Cannabis sativa is a plant species. Cannabis (drug) is an article about the effects of drugs made from this plant. All three should be kept. bogdan | Talk 15:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea of sativa as a distinct species is very well covered in Cannabis. All species or varities have drug potential, if subject to appropriate cultivation regimes. Laurel Bush 16:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC).

I think it's a good idea to keep the specific species pages separate. If you think the treatment on the cannabis page is adequate, then that section should be removed from the article and combined with this one. this articcle also contains a good deal of botanical information that is neglected from the cannabis article.

I propose that we move information general to cannabis to the cannabis page, and keep information specific to sativa on this page. Cannabis can be a parent article to sativa and indica articles. a general treatment of the subspecies can be touched on in the parent article, and anyone seeking a more in depth treatment can find it here. Perhaps we should establish a cannabis project, or a drug project in general unless one exists?Shaggorama 09:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Common Uses[edit]

I reworded the first paragraph in the Common Uses section. Previously it said the seeds were the source of the psychoactive compounds. Although trace amounts of cannibinoids are found in the seeds, leaves, and stems, they are most abundant in the flower portions (aka buds). thx1138 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge from subspecies articles[edit]

I added merge tags to Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis rasta some time ago, proposing that the articles be merged to Cannabis. The reason for doing so is that the plants they describe are not widely accepted as separate species.

The biology is the same throughout the genus with only minor differences, so having multiple articles duplicates a lot of information, that can potentially get out of synch or even become mutually contradictory.

After thinking about it more I think the best solution would be to merge the (small) articles at Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and Cannabis rasta into the Cannabis sativa article. Then the question becomes how best to divide content between genus and the species level. Chondrite 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags have been on the affected articles since 20 September 2006 without any comment or objection, so I will go ahead and merge them within a day or two. Chondrite 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Article content merged without modification as subsection of new subspecies section of this article. Cleanup is needed. I will work on cleanup over the next several days, including cleanup at "What links here" for the redirects. Merged article talk pages have not been merged into this talk page (yet), and can be found at Talk:Cannabis indica, and Talk:Cannabis rasta. There was no page at Talk:Cannabis ruderalis. -- Chondrite 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

C. rasta[edit]

The only report of C. rasta seems to be New Scientist Article on Discovery (From pg 12, issue 2517 of New Scientist magazine, 20/9/05). The Forensic Science International article alluded to by New Scientist appears never to have been published, nor have I been able to find any independent corroboration for this story. The article previously at C. rasta was little more than the New Scientist article expanded slightly with original research. The subsection has been removed for lack of a reliable source. Chondrite 07:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

This article should be merged into cannabis, SqueakBox 18:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that since the genus is currently viewed as monotypic, there is little information to include in a species-level article that does not also apply to the genus. However, WikiProject Plants seeks to have an article for every species of plant. Also, the article at Cannabis is undergoing expansion, including planned expansion of the Cannabis#Description and Cannabis#Taxonomy sections, major expansion of the Cannabis#Geographical distribution stub section, and addition of Ecology and Economic Importance sections. Readable prose at Cannabis is currently 22K, and the planned expansion is likely to require splits to keep within article size guidelines. Moving some information from the genus article to the species article seems like a logical arrangement. -- Chondrite 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I here about wanting articles for every species, SqueakBox 19:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Even if this is the only species of cannabis, we need an article at the species level. All organisms regardless on whether or not there is one species or not, has a species name and needs an article on the species level. Zachorious 10:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger. As someone pointed out in the merger discussion going on at the other page we have a hemp disambig page, but not cannabis. I feel that cannabis sativa can be the botanical information page, and cannabis can be like the disambig page, which would link to cannabis drug, cannabis etymology, etc... Quickmythril (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

List of cannabis strains[edit]

Why was this article merged with Cannabis sativa? That should be a seperate article. The list of different strains aren't even here! Someone should fix this mess! Zachorious 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree this merge was not a great idea, the cannabis strains page was very useful. since it has been removed i added a link to the a cannabis strain guide that was originally a source for many strains on the old cannabis strains wikipedia page because many visitors are looking for information on various cannabis strains. this website is non-profit and advertisement free. Chq 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They really fucked up a great list. --AlexOvShaolin 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors[edit]

This presentation of the "scientific" classification of Cannabis appears to a hodge-podge of various taxonomic treatments and "common knowledge" among Cannabis aficionados. The fact is that C. sativa, C. indica, and C. ruderalis are all valid, legitimate species names. Whether one chooses to recognize them as separate species depends on ones species concept. It is not a matter of right or wrong, because there is no "one size fits all" definition of a species.

1) The family Cannabaceae should be assigned to the order Urticales, not Rosales. 2) The taxonomic treatment that is presented is based on a faulty interpretation of Small and Cronquist's taxonomic revision. According to their treatment, subsp. indica has two varieties, indica and kafiristanica. There is no mention of var. kafiristanica in this article. Also, according to their concept both the narrow-leaflet and wide-leaflet drug strains belong to subsp. indica. It was Loran Anderson who assigned the narrow-leafed [drug] strains to C. sativa and the wide-leafed [drug] strains to C. indica. Schultes described C. sativa as tall and laxly branched, and most people interpret that to include the narrow-leafed drug strains, but Schultes did not include leaflet shape in his species descriptions taxonomic key. By the way, Small didn't include any wide-leafed drug strains in his morphological or chemotaxonomic studies. He and Cronquist merely mentioned in passing that they would assign the wide-leafed plants from Afghanistan that Schultes insists is a different species to "a broader conception of the intoxicant taxon" (i.e., C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica). 3) If "drug cultivars" of C. sativa subsp. sativa var. sativa [are there any?] "usually produce relatively high ratios of CBD to THC," then they wouldn't be drug cultivars. In the scientific literature the cannabinoid ratio is sometimes given as CBD to THC, and sometimes as THC to CBD. In the wiki Cannabis article it is given as THC to CBD. I suggest changing the ratios to THC to CBD in this article too, because it is less confusing (a high ratio gets you "high") 4) Plants of var. spontanea usually have a high ratio of CBD to THC, not a low ratio. 5) The wide-leafed drug landraces tend to produce a higher ratio of CBD to THC, not a lower ratio. However, this is not true for many commercial "indica" strains, which are genetically fixed to produce a high THC/CBD ratio. 6) Cannabis "seeds" do not contain cannabinoids 7) This is not the place to introduce slang terms like "buds" 8) If males reached "sexual maturity" several weeks before females, there would be no cross-pollination. It is better to say that the "seeds" on female plants mature several weeks after the males shed their pollen and die. 9) A single flower is hermaphroditic if it has both male and female parts. A plant with separate male and female flowers on the same inflorescence, or on separate inflorescences, is not a "hermaphrodite." It is monoecious. 10) A citation is needed for the statement that "varieties containing below 2% THC, such as those specifically cultivated for use as hemp, smoking may produce lightheadedness or mild headache but not inebriation." Much of the cheap Mexican pot sold in the 60s and early 70s was leaf material that was probably less than 2% THC, but people still smoked it and got high after a couple joints. The number in that statement should be lowered, perhaps to 0.8 % which is the theoretical upper limit for plants genetically fixed to produce a low THC/CBD ratio. 11) Since this article is based on Small and Cronquists taxonomic treatment, that treatment should be cited. 12) It seems to me that the Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis links should point back to the Cannabis page, not the Cannabis sativa page. The Cannabis rasta link should be deleted entirely because it is not a legitimate taxon. GeorgeLTirebiter 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh[edit]

Why does "cannabis indica" redirect here? 71.68.15.63 17:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed it, it now redirects to cannabis, SqueakBox 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does "ditch weed" redirect here? --George The Man (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Get it right for once[edit]

This is what happens when you get retards making articles on this site. They are too freakin' stupid to take the bloody time to do some research on a subject and post the first bullshit they find. Marijuana doesn't come from just Cannabis Sativa. And for the love of God, Sativa isn't a damn strain, it's a SPECIES of cannabis, along with Cannabis Indica, Cannabis Ruderalis and Cannabis Afghanica (sometimes spelled Afghani). I really wish those freakin' inbreds would stop pretending they know what they are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blutteufel (talkcontribs) 08:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do get it right Blutteufel. It seems you may be getting all your info from cannabis-specific growing books and magazines you find in head shops. Sativa is a Genus. Sativa var. Sativa is a species. As Sativa var. Indica is a species, etc, etc. Also, much like "Rasta", Afghanica is not a species. It is, depending on the source, either an Indica subspecies, or simply a another name for Indica. As a quick search will show you, Afghanica appears to only be mentioned online at all in drug forums, not exactly credible source material, but if that is the medium you choose to believe: a typical sample, from http://www.drugs-forum.com, it is mentioned as such: Cannabis Afghanica, which many users/growers refer to as Indica, is noted for such strains as Afghani, and various 'Kush' strains, originating in the Kush mountain range." A quick search will also show you that Kush, as well as most Afghani strains, are either pure or dominantly Indica. And while I doubt this bit will sink in, writing things like"wish those freakin' inbreds would stop pretending they know what they are talking about.", has no place here.KVND 23:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talkcontribs)

The genus is Cannabis, actually. The species is sativa. There's disagreement as to whether indica and ruderalis are indeed separate species (in which case, they'd be written as C. indica and C. ruderalis) or subspecies of Cannabis sativa (in which case, the nomenclature would be C. sativa var. indica for indica, and C. sativa var. spondanea for ruderalis). Plant genetics are very rarely clear-cut, and without any in-depth genetic studies on the genus, it's really impossible to say for certain. How to define Afghani and Kafiristani strains is even less clear; phenotypically, they closely resemble indica strains, and that's most likely all they really are. That they have different cannabinoid compositions than other indica strains doesn't prove much. Lacking the genetic and phylogenetic studies needed to organize Cannabis, it's impossible to make any definitive statements on the matter.

So with that being said, you're both wrong, albeit in different ways. It pays to be accurate, and in the chance that whatever you're spouting out is wrong, it also pays to not be a jerk.209.33.27.139 (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Munchies[edit]

I do not find out definition of munchies, the link is it OK (?) I do not understand to much noise with taxonomy Small et Cronquist is an educative intent

--Penarc 14:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Huh?[edit]

Why is Sativa listed as one of the two types of Cannabis under C. sativa subsp. indica var. indica? - Renegade78 03:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Indica vs sativa effects have to do with CBD vs THC?[edit]

All cannabis plants are at least 60% THC and 40% CBD, but is it true that indica's more "stoned" effects are the product of having more CBD in the bud while sativas have a higher concentration of THC? 76.126.245.90 (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately any answer to this question will have a dozen or more that contradict it. If you search "indica vs sativa", for example, you get wildly different "facts" from skimming the first two pages of search results(google). There apparently have been studies done that suggest CBD is primarily responsible for the sedative, analgesic effects in Cannabis, while THC is primarily responsible for the various effects on thought and mood(i.e, CBD=stoned, and THC=high). However, I only learned of these studies while reading an article that summarized their methods and findings, then it pointed out these studies were all suspect, either (suspected)bias, poorly conducted, or to few participants were involved to be conclusive. So, to answer that part; who knows? No one. The only people you can be certain are dead wrong is anyone who claims they know anything on the subject as fact.

Effects from these cannabinoids aside, Sativas are believed as typically having a higher THC to CBD ratio, Indica vice-versa, though not always, such as an excellent quality Indica can have far more THC than an average Sativa.

Lastly, you stated all Cannabis plants have at least 60% THC and 40% CBD. That would be incredible, but sadly not even close! I'm going to assume you meant % of Cannabinoids, not trimmed plant weight, but that is still staggeringly out of range. If you spend a while browsing the various seed banks online, most tell you exactly how much THC, and often CBD, are in plants grown from their genetics. One I've seen even listed CBN, aminoacids, sugars, terpenoids, and vegetal hormones. The reputable ones pay labs to calculate this with gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Since that is rather expensive, when I was working for an OCBC licensed dispensary we had cannalytics-xl kits(http://www.cannalytics.nl/), only slightly less accurate but $300 for 50 tests; We did these tests mainly when buying from a cultivator for the first time. Some of the results were surprising; Up to 6%(Ind) and 9%(Sat) differences in THC of the same strain, either due to different mother plants or different growers. Also, THC gradually degrades into the non-psychoactive CBN, thus older or poorly preserved Cannabis can have almost no THC but still some CBD, which oxides more slowly. To give you idea of THC %'s, in the late 60's-70's most weed was around 6%, some as little as 2%. Today a top strain will typycaly have from 14-20%, with some monsters are 26-28%.KVND 03:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVND (talkcontribs)

Classification[edit]

I am a PHD botanist and Cannabis is always referred to as Cannabis sativa. The three known varients (indica, sativa, ruderalis)are referred to as subspecies. The known strains (crosses of the subspecies) are referred to as cultivars and do not exist in nature as recognizable subspecies. Get it right. Science is a repeatable process and attempting to classify every known cultivar is not within the scope of botany as it relates to the linnean classification system. Look at Roses they are classified much the same way as I have described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.232.66 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I've proposed at Talk:Cannabis that this article is merged as it would seem that the most reliable taxonomic sources list Cannabis as only containing one species - C. sativa - as this is the case we should only have an article for the genus and not the species. Herbal Hi (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
PHD botanist - You say that Cannabis is always referred to as Cannabis sativa. Are you not familiar with such papers as "Cannabis: an Example of Taxonomic Neglect" by Dr. Richard Schultes, or "A Study of Systematic Wood Anatomy in Cannabis" by Dr. Loran Anderson? I know Small and Cronquist subdivided C. sativa into subspecies indica and sativa, but who assigned ruderalis to the rank of subspecies? Do you mean to tell us that strains, subspecies crosses, and cultivars are the same thing? And who said anything about "attempting to classify every known cultivar?" I must have missed that. GeorgeLTirebiter (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Male/female plant differences[edit]

The male and female plants of C. sativa look distinctly different, but this isn't pointed out in the article. The associated drawing by Franz Eugen Köhler does show both sexes, but the annotation is missing, so the reader is not made aware of the difference. It would be good to add text to this effect, and if possible, photos of the plants illustrating this difference. There is some coverage of this fact in the Cannabis article, but the photos that purport to show the difference show a great deal of confusing greenery and no side-by-side comparison. Maybe the photo issue could be solved by providing a key to the Köhler drawing: The information is there at Wikimedia Commons, in German, English and Russian. (The English translation was completely lacking, so I translated if from German just a few minutes ago.) —QuicksilverT @ 22:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

source 2 has absolutely nothing to do with this article[edit]

Source #2 which is http://www.kingstoncompassion.org/?q=node/13 has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.206.100.165 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved Keri (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Pharmacology[edit]

This paragraph, "Yet to be globally proven in standard control surveys, a North American study conducted by think tank Source Watch was the first to analyze the correlations between the smoking of certain sativa strains of cannabis and academic achievement. In particular, sativa plants which were harvested in the two to three month of ostegination led to the stimulation of chords within cerebellum which otherwise remain dead throughout daily activity. In particular, studies on intelligence suggest that daily smokers, being three to five times a week, experienced the stimulation of these chords daily and thus served as the benefactors of the ostegination process which leads to this strain of sativa.", what does it mean!!?? The word "ostegination" doesn't exist... I was going to delete the entire thing but thought someone else might actually know something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahar38 (talkcontribs) 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Native range?[edit]

Does anyone know/could someone add information about the NATIVE RANGE of Cannabis sativa? philiptdotcom (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

‎Does Cannabis indica contain more CBD than Cannabis sativa?[edit]

We are currently citing [1] to claim that Cannabis indica contains more CBD than Cannabis sativa. This is questionable even from that source which quotes Valerie Corral as stating: "Results from a drug detection laboratory indicated that C. sativa measured: THC 23.7%, CBD <0.1% and CBN <0.1%. Results indicated that C. indica strains measured THC 19.6%, CBD <0.2% and CBN <0.5%." —Sharavanabhava (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

One can check exact numbers at http://analytical360.com/testresults. If you compare pure indica strains vs. pure sativa strains you'll see that the THC:CBD ratio is very similar. Popelin (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
If that is true, why has the dubious tag been removed and your link used in support of the dubious claim? —Sharavanabhava (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I have undone that. It wasn't Popelin who removed the tag. —Sharavanabhava (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This page and the indica page say different things while citing the same source
"Mean THC levels [...] were significantly higher in C. indica than C. sativa."[1]

References

91.125.20.63 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Outdoor cannabis doesn't need 12 hours of darkness[edit]

Outdoor cannabis starts flowering well before days shorten to 12 hours. In the US, cannabis flowers in July/August, when days are still more than 15 hours long. The 12-12 rule does not apply to outdoor growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9000:7C2C:D716:3D9C:12E1:441E (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mention meaning of sativa[edit]

Mention origin / meaning of sativa (Sativum). 01:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Mention Etymology of cannabis. Jidanni (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

THC[edit]

So... User:Cannabinetics add the content below, in this dif:

Pharmacology

Contrary to popular belief, Cannabis CANNOT produce, NOR synthesize THC delta-9-tetrahyrocannabinol.

The Bio-Synthetic Pathway of Cannabis ends at THCAS tetrahydroncannabinolic-acid synthase, an enzyme. [1]. This enzyme, THCAS is neither psycho-active, nor intoxicating, but it is infant-safe.

Absent any prior knowledge to an contrary intended use, any discussion of THC would be premature, without merit, and unfounded. (As a convenience to Wikipedia readers I have included THC at the end of this section.)

THCA-A tetrahydrocannabinolic-acid-A is the synthesis of the enzymatic catalysis between THCAS and CBGA cannabigerolic-acid. The resultant THCA-A is not psycho-active, nor intoxicating, and again it is infant-safe. THCA-A requires strict temperature, humidity and light-controlled curing NED Non-Enzymatic Decarboxylation to "produce" THCA-A from the THCAS and CBGA.

Non-Enzymatic Decarboxylation begins around 80C, in earnest at 107.5C, peaking at 157.5C, and ending at approximately 182.5C.

Finally, THC is the by-product of Non-Enzymatic Decarboxylation of THCA-A tetrahydrocannabinolic-acid-A. Non-Enzymatic Decarboxylation releases the Carboxylic Group CO2 from this precursor acid. Activating release of the Carboxylic Group allows a THC molecule to fit into a "keyhole" of an Endogenous Cannabinoid Receptor System - Cannabinoid Receptor 1 CB1 like a "key". THC unlocks the Regulating & Modulating capacities of Cannabis-Activated Retrograde Synaptic Signaling CARSS. CARSS works conjunction with with Classical Synaptic Signaling CSS to provide a complete Macro-Cellular/Micro-Cellular Feedback System.

An analogy for Cannabis can be made with tomatoes and ketchup, grapes and wine, or potatoes and vodka. THCAS is not THC. THCA-A is not THC. Tomatoes are not Ketchup. Roma Tomatoes are not Kethcup. Grapes are not Wine. White Grapes are not Wine. Potatoes are not Vodka. Sweet Potatoes are not Vodka. All of these secondary products are the result of Human Intervention AND Intention.

THC is is in effect a Myth when one eats Fresh, Raw Cannnabis vs. curing as explained above.

Cannabis plant is known to contain more than 500 compounds, among them at least 113 cannabinoids; however, most of these "minor" cannabinoids are only produced in trace amounts.[2] Besides THC, another cannabinoid produced in high concentrations by some plants is cannabidiol (CBD), which is not psychoactive but has recently been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system.[3] Differences in the chemical composition of Cannabis varieties may produce different effects in humans. Synthetic THC, called dronabinol, does not contain CBD, CBN, or other cannabinoids, which is one reason why its pharmacological effects may differ significantly from those of natural Cannabis preparations.

References

  1. ^ (Page et al. 2011 - http://genome.ccbr.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/hgGateway)
  2. ^ Aizpurua-Olaizola, Oier; Soydaner, Umut; Öztürk, Ekin; Schibano, Daniele; Simsir, Yilmaz; Navarro, Patricia; Etxebarria, Nestor; Usobiaga, Aresatz (2016-02-02). "Evolution of the Cannabinoid and Terpene Content during the Growth ofCannabis sativaPlants from Different Chemotypes". Journal of Natural Products. 79 (2): 324–331. doi:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b00949. 
  3. ^ Russo, Ethan B (2011-08-01). "Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects". British Journal of Pharmacology. 163 (7): 1344–1364. doi:10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01238.x. ISSN 1476-5381. PMC 3165946Freely accessible. PMID 21749363. 

This isn't useable as it stands (too much WP:EDITORIALIZING and mostly unsourced. Am copying here for discussion. If the article is wrong, let;s fix it. If this is la-la land, it will just stay out. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • 2nd version, added here:

Contrary to this article's "opinion", neither Cannabis, nor Hemp are genetically capable to produce, or synthesize THC. [1][2]

References

  1. ^ The draft genome and transcriptome of Cannabis sativa: Harm van Bakel, Jake M Stout, Atina G Cote, Carling M Tallon, Andrew G Sharpe, Timothy R Hughes author and Jonathan E Page author Genome Biology201112:R102 DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-10-r102© van Bakel et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011 Accepted: 20 October 2011Published: 20 October 2011
  2. ^ C. sativa (Cannabis) Genome Browser Gateway Purple Kush (canSat3) assembly Cannabinoid pathway genes, (http://genome.ccbr.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/hgGateway)

-- Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)