I have smoked well grown, pleasant tasting and smelling herb that got me pretty high. Figured it was about average or a bit high on the THC level. I had it tested and it hit 11.8% THC. That is the only strain I have ever had test below 15%, but it still gets me just as high as some herb that was less flavorful but tested at 15.5% THC, in fact I enjoyed the high more of the "weaker" strain.
I've had this experience too (liking "weaker" cannabis more), and of course buds can have subjectively different effects, irrespective of just THC content.
Again, with respect to "high" quality, other non-THC cannabinoids matter, dosing matters, and so do subjective factors including tolerance (which may be variable between different cannabinoids), mood, expectation, and even seemingly unrelated things like full/empty stomach (since this may affect the rate of hepatic cannabinoid metabolism via portal blood flow).
The question isn't whether 12% THC buds can get you just as "high" as 16% buds, and its not even whether "high" quality can be better with lower THC strains. I don't really think there are any experienced smokers who doubt either of these two things. Everyone also agrees that terpenoids are the agents primarily responsible for the various smells and flavors of cannabis strains, and that these things do provide at least a significant part of the subjective pleasure of smoking. So absolutely terpenes "matter".
You made the pretty striking claim that terpenoids are also the single major determining factor in pharmacologic "high" quality. So far as I can tell, nobody else is making that specific claim, that's why I asked you about it.
So I base my opinion on results I have seen and having talked extensively to breeders like DJ short who has a breakdown of every single strain he has and the terpenes in each one, and then he had the terpenes/waxes separated from the other cannabinoids and tested via GC/MS. He then keeps samples of both separate and takes them around to show people. These are co2 extracts by the way...
OK, that's fair.
Is DJ Short actually making the claim that *the* major determinant of subjective high quality is terpenoid content?
FWIW, Greenhouse ceeds also publishes terpene numbers for all of their strains, though I don't think they're making this sort of claim (yet).
Guess what, pure THC or cbd aren't enjoyable. The terpenes alone aren't medicinal. Put them together, you have an entourage effect.
Well, I agree that pure CBD doesn't cause a "high" and isn't by itself enjoyable.
Whether or not pure THC is "enjoyable" is subjective. Because pure THC can cause a "speedy" effect with lots of side effects (racing heart, panic, dry mouth, etc), I think many smokers do prefer some modulating agents too (like CBD) mixed into their smoke. But pure THC most certainly does cause a "high" and there definitely are individuals who enjoy it.
You don't have to take my word for it. There is quite a body of published scientific literature indicating that yes, pure THC will get you "high". (EG
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16148455 for a relatively recent one ).
On terpenes "alone" being medicinal, there is also quite a bit of research on individual compounds, and some of these probably do have medically useful effects, though most of the documented effects are unrelated to getting "high".
Again, the scientist who invented the term "entourage effect" did so at least in part to draw attention to the effects of the so called "minor" cannabinoids: CBD, THCV, CBG, and CBC. He is probably the world's leading expert in the area of terpene/cannabinoid interactions. Yes, he claims that terpenes are part of the "entourage", but even he's saying its an open question as to what most of these actually do in human smokers, with a lot of this being speculative.
To the point, with the exception of myrcene (which he claims may contribute to "couchlock") so far as I can tell, he's not making claims that terpenes play a major role in psychoactivity. He does speculate that some terpenes may modulate certain effects associated with other cannabinoids, but without good clinical evidence. If you care to read his entire piece, you can do so for free here. Its an excellent summary, though it may be a bit of a tough "read" if you're not familiar with medical/pharmacologic jargon. The references he cites are also good too:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/
Don't be the person doubting the world is round, or the earth revolves around the sun... These things will be proven with time.
With due respect, likening others who disagree with you of being "flat earthers" is a tactic used by people who don't have the facts on their side.
If you have evidence that supports your position, cite it.
Its perfectly fine to believe things without proof, but if you don't have evidence that supports your beliefs, the intellectually honest thing to do is just to say so.
Again, I'm perfectly willing to believe that terpenes have medical effects, and even that some of them might affect high quality to some degree. But I'm not ready to accept that these things are "the" major factor explaining subjective differences without a good bit more evidence than I've yet seen.
