Enlighten me

September 18, 2006 12:41 PM

Truth or myth: distinct breeds of hydro deliver markedly different highs.

I've had no experience with hydro, or anything but back-garden variety homegrown, for that matter. But I've read that these products are bred to produce subtley -- most often, markedly -- different highs. Body highs, stoney highs. Psychedelic mind-expanding highs, deep and relaxing highs. Basically, the hydro breeders in the 'Dam and elsewhere have taken the indica/sativa difference and squared it, then squared it again.

I've always thought that the difference in highs due to non-THC chemicals is mute at best. But reading about the new breeds suggests otherwise. What's the, er, score on this one?

posted by Gordion Knott to home & garden (14 comments total)

my experience indicates that the kind of high varies widely depending upon the source, including any hydro i tried.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 12:48 PM on September 18, 2006

Why don't you just pony up and judge for yourself? "Hydro" is abused nomenclature, especially when you are really intending to reference specific strains and not the way in which they are provided their nutrients throughout the grow cycle. If you mean to say you've never had kind buds (sinsemilla), but only smoked schwag, then yes; it will probably blow your mind.
posted by prostyle at 12:52 PM on September 18, 2006

Purely from personal experience, yes. Different pot gets you different high. Heck, different smoking methods can even affect things. Also, bud != hash != oil. They all have their own "flavour".

Cheap stuff is always about the same though. Short lived, lack of clarity, intense munchies, makes you want to smoke more within the hour. Good stuff can vary a lot. Some is cerebral and introspective, other stuff makes you chatty and ultra social. It can be all in your head with heavy pressure behind the eyes and other times you feel it in your body with some tingling on your skin. Sometimes you feel it immediately and other times you are left thinking you got ripped off until 20 mins after you are done the joint.

Some of this affect surely has to do with environment and your person as well, so YMMV.

Have I outed myself as a pot smoker yet? :p
posted by utsutsu at 1:04 PM on September 18, 2006

A long-lost friend of mine once came out of the woodwork and did me a favor by supplying me, at a heavy discount, three different kinds.

He explained the names of the three, the characteristics of them, and the different ways in which they would affect me. Keeping in mind that mood and context can play a great role in how you "get high", he was correct in all three cases.
posted by rocketman at 1:05 PM on September 18, 2006

Given the different compounds that are in Cannabis, their different ratios depending on the plant and harvesting time/treatment and the fact that there are presumably nonlinear synergies between them (even if they are individually inactive, one would presume that they modified a THC high, for example), the answer is an unqualified yes.
posted by lalochezia at 1:17 PM on September 18, 2006

All I know is that White Widow beats everything hands-down when it comes to destroying you.

I miss it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:19 PM on September 18, 2006

In my experience, this is absolutely true. When I was in Amsterdam the coffee shops even had menus of the different types of pot that they offered, with descriptions of the high that you would get, and they were pretty dead-on.
posted by Who_Am_I at 3:34 PM on September 18, 2006

Yes, with a heavy caveat— The primary differences are in sativa versus indica, and individual strains are often only broadly consistent, with sativa being more of a head high and indica more of a body high. The "name" buds generally are more consistent on flavor and on intensity than any subtle variations of high, and I'd second the comment above about context being the most important part: there's a high psychosomatic component to any experience.
And be wary of "hydro" or "White Widow" or any of the other names given to weed strains. Hydro almost never has anything to do with the way it's grown (like it should), and "White Widow" crops up on anything with white hairs on it. (You mean drug dealers are sometimes unscrupulous regarding marketting claims?) Aside from a few pot hotspots, like BC and the Netherlands, claims of name strains are almost entirely bunk. That doesn't mean they're not great smokes, just seldom worth the premium price.
If you ever get a chance, I recommend spending some time in Amsterdam with nothing else to do and trying a bunch for yourself. (You may even end up like me, prefering the brownies over anything else. But if you can find it, I like the Purple Haze or the Orange Blossom).
posted by klangklangston at 5:25 PM on September 18, 2006

Neurophysiological and subjective profile of marijuana with varying concentrations of cannabinoids:

This study investigated the contribution of different cannabinoids to the subjective, behavioral and neurophysiological effects of smoked marijuana. Healthy marijuana users (12 men, 11 women) participated in four sessions. They were randomly assigned to a low or a high delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol group (THC; 1.8% versus 3.6%). In the four sessions under blinded conditions subjects smoked marijuana cigarettes containing placebo (no active cannabinoids), or cigarettes containing THC with low or high levels of cannabichromene (CBC; 0.1% versus 0.5%) and low or high levels of cannabidiol (CBD; 0.2% versus 1.0%). Dependent measures included subjective reports, measures of cognitive task performance and neurophysiological measures [electroencephalographic (EEG) and event-related potential (ERP)]. Compared to placebo, active THC cigarettes produced expected effects on mood, behavior and brain activity. A decrease in performance, reduction in EEG power and attenuation of ERP components reflecting attentional processes were observed during tests of working memory and episodic memory. Most of these effects were not dose-dependent. Varying the concentrations of CBC and CBD did not change subjects' responses on any of the outcome measures. These findings are consistent with previous studies indicating that THC and its metabolites are the primary active constituents of marijuana. They also suggest that neurophysiological EEG and ERP measures are useful biomarkers of the effects of THC.
posted by daksya at 6:35 PM on September 18, 2006

daksya .. dude, that was a total buzzkill.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 7:58 PM on September 18, 2006

My friend J used to do a lot of varietal breeding experiments. He classified his results using a one-to-ten scale in three dimensions: up, out and sideways (up: tendency to gibber; out: tendency to fall asleep; sideways: tendency to weirdness).

His 8-up, 1-out and 5-sideways plant was an extraordinary experience.

It's more about genetics than growth environment, though both are factors.
posted by flabdablet at 9:03 PM on September 18, 2006

Daksya: fascinating. I still believe (but can't prove) that there must be something other than THC concentration and set-and-setting to the difference in effects that people report with pot.

Flabdablet: Your friend should publish. And he's a minor hero of mine.
posted by lalochezia at 9:51 PM on September 18, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy: Dude, white widow isn't it. Jack Herrer is the ticket. May be more difficult to find. The widow it doesn't last. Jack does right.

Sadly, I can say this was a consistent finding over a period of years. It was not uncommon for the Jack to be unavailable, and white widow to be offered.
posted by Goofyy at 6:13 AM on September 19, 2006

There have been some strains that gave me panic attacks, some that glued me to the couch, some that inspired the giggles ala reefer madness. Some strains looked like moonrocks, some had red hairs like my friend's beard (sorry if that's gross, but it's accurate). That latter strain caused me to be called Gandolf, because I had the best pipeweed in the valley. Some made me very, how do you say, amorous.

There are huge differences in genetics. This is no lie at all; definately not a myth.

I always liked the blueberry. The flavor is exactly as the name suggests.

When some geneticist comes out with the snozz berry, though, it's all over. Reality itself will no longer be sober.
posted by wires at 1:15 PM on September 19, 2006